The Comparative Study Of The Domain Name Dispute Resolution System

Since the Internet was opened to the commercial field, domain name, a technicalsymbol of Internet, has been granted commercial value. As a result, disputes of thedomain name have arisen and their numbers has increased sharply with years, whichare mostly caused by the conflict between the domain name and the trademark. Up tonow, in one year, there are thousands cases regarding generic top-level domainsbought to one domain dispute resolution mechanism. As a country with biggestpopulation of domain name, Chinese ccTLD receives hundreds domain name disputecases every year. However, the related law system is not mature enough to solve allkinds of disputes between the domain name and other civil rights, especially disputeswith the trademark. In China, large number of cases was ruled only by the principle ofgood faith other than stipulations, while in some cases, parties doing illegal acts getrid of punishment due to the discrepancy of laws.Therefore, in this thesis, I have done comparative study among different disputeresolution mechanism system of different countries and institution, such as US, UK,Australia, Japan and ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Mechanism,the most popular domain name resolution mechanism in the world. By doing so, I tryto find out some inspiration among those systems for our country.The first chapter gives an introduction of the structure of the domain name and thehistory of the domain name disputes. Following is the summary of three main domainname dispute resolution methods in the world, namely, administrative procedure,litigation and the arbitration. Among these methods, administrative procedure is themost popular resolution methods, because of its efficiency and economy. However, the decision from the administrative procedure has the danger to be challenged, whichis it biggest disadvantage. The litigation method is opposite to the administrative one,of which the decisions are legally and conclusively binding, but it is more expensiveand time consuming. How to make a balance between two methods and create aperfect legislative mechanism for the domain name dispute is the core goal of thisthesis.The second chapter is the comparative study between the relevant systems of theUnited States, UK, Australia, and Japan. The United States is the first country thatestablished private domain name dispute resolution mechanism and enacted thespecific law on domain name dispute. Its development process of domain namesystem is coherent and successful, which makes it valuable for our reference. UK andAustralia are common law countries without statutory law, however, their judicialexperience, settling the domain name disputes by law of principle, also shall bereferred. Japanese domain name disputes settlement largely relies on beforehandprevention mechanism and administrative procedure. Their great success inprevention mechanism beforehand provides us much enlightenment in system design.The third chapter is the study of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute ResolutionMechanism. For the efficiency and convenience, the mechanism gains numeroussupporters among enterprises and individuals. And the standards stipulated in theUDRP are even becoming an international practice, referred by many countries. Sothis chapter is concentrate on the standard. It should be pointed out that manyimportant conceptions do not be defined clearly, that results confuse in application.The fourth chapter begins with the analysis about the deficiencies in China’srelevant legal system. There is no definite rule about how to solve the domain namedispute except judicial interpretation, which is lack of entire effectiveness and out ofline of current law. To solve these deficiencies, the writer suggests a specific lawbased the comparative study above.