Analysis Of "Zhoulibo.Com"Domain Name Disputes Case

With the rapid development of the global Internet, the registration and use of domain names have been melting in the people’s social life. Domain name as a property right protected by law should be subject, however, China is still a lack of a network domain name registration, use, transfer and other issues related to specific legislation. Courts in dealing with domain name disputes can only be applied with the relevant judicial interpretations and other branches of law. This is bound to be some understanding of the applicable law or the law of the contentious issues, this paper will combine Zhou Internet domain name disputes judgment, to discuss the network domain name was registered as a legal application and Reflections on related issues. Case with the plaintiff Yue nominee "Hong Yishen" registered the domain name zhoulibo.com subsequently published on this site offer to sell the domain of information involved, and some literary writer Zhou Libo. Shanghai Qing mouth founder, the famous comedian Zhou Libo complaint to the Asian Domain Name Center, requested the transfer of the domain name zhoulibo.com all to yourself, the domain name will be involved in the center of the domain name transferred to the ruling Zhou. The plaintiff asked the court Yue dissatisfied zhoulibo.com transfer the domain name to yourself.In this case the plaintiff yue with "generation" to apply for domain name registration act, the court according to the evidence to confirm that each yue is the generation of "Hong Yishen" behind the actual manipulation of the people, determining its behavior effectively. And law provisions of domain name registration the domain name registration information provided must be truthful, accurate and complete, in principle, with the generation of behavior lack of authenticity of the application for registration shall be null and void. But specific law did not require the applicant must provide domain name registration and identification of relevant certificates to prove its authenticity, leads to use agent to apply for registration of legal tolerance.In this case the plaintiff whether to have the right to apply for a registered "zhoulibo.com", namely law whether to ask the domain name registrant that there is a connection with the domain name itself. According to the first application, first registered principle, the plaintiff is entitled to apply for registration according to the relevant legal procedures of this domain. The plaintiff yue will zhou libo’s pinyin name registered for the domain name is violated rights of zhou’s name. To this,"the general principles of the civil law" the name right infringement behavior regulations prohibit others to intervene, pirated, counterfeit, and registered for the network domain name, the name others does not belong to theft, interference, fake name of others. So will others name registered as a domain name does not constitute infringement of right of name.The case involved in the domain name "zhoulibo.com" is a mistake to the public’s domain name is actor zhou himself, whether the "mistakes" of the relevant public. According to the domain of judicial interpretation about the "relevant public" refers to the domain name actual use behavior and the effect will be enough to cause the relevant public mistake, rather than to recognize the part of the domain name itself. So, can’t from intuition or public domain similarity determination of elements of the two has a one-to-one relationship. When the plaintiff yue to register and use the domain name involved whether there is a "malicious", namely that of "malicious" standard. In the process of the cognizance of "malicious" elements, core part is the "business purpose" and "to obtain illegitimate interests" judgment."To obtain illegitimate interests" includes "illegal interests" and "the interests" should not be "the interests" should not have been the law did not give a definite boundaries. For this case, the court think their behavior is a business purpose, to obtain illegitimate interests, the author thinks that the plaintiffs offer price is not for commercial purposes to obtain illegitimate interests, and to give the price from the defendant promise, of course the plaintiff did not get any benefits, their behavior does not constitute a malicious.