涉“MOODY'S”网络域名不正当竞争纠纷案

  Case Analysis

Moody's Quality Management Co., Ltd. v. Hangzhou Aiming Internet Co., Ltd.

涉“MOODY'S”网络域名不正当竞争纠纷案

Docket No.: 7423, second instance (终), civil case (民), (2020) Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court (浙01)

Lower Court Docket No.: 10058, first instance (初), civil case (民), (2019) Hangzhou Internet Court (浙0192)

一审案号：（2019）浙0192民初10058号

二审案号：（2020）浙01民终7423号

Prefatory Syllabus

裁判要旨

The determination of domain name registrants shall be based on the content of publicity and public trust, while the temporary template service in domain name registration shall be comprehensively determined from whether there is an agreement, whether the information of the actual registrant is submitted or updated timely, and whether the personal information is hidden in good faith, etc. Registration service acts that actually hoard and cyber-squat a large number of domain names, and use corporate names interchangeably to confuse the registrant information are acts under the banner of temporary template services but actually malicious cybersquatting behaviors, and should be regulated to purify the current chaos in the domain name registration industry.

域名注册人的认定应当以公示公信内容为准，域名注册中的临时模板服务认定应从其是否存在协议、是否及时提交或更新实际注册人信息、是否善意隐藏个人信息等方面予以综合认定；对实际大量囤积、抢注域名、互用企业名称混淆注册人信息的注册服务行为，属于名为临时模板服务、实为恶意抢注域名的行为，应当予以规制，以净化当前域名注册行业乱象。

The privacy protection service in domain name registration is not contradictory to the existing real-name system of domain name registration, and the target of its protection is limited to the private information of the registrant, whose name is not within the scope of the privacy protection service, nor could it be disguised as a substitute for the real holder of the domain name and generate the so-called "proxy holding of a domain name". Otherwise, the registrant of the domain name recorded with the domain name management agency should bear the corresponding legal responsibility.

域名注册中的隐私保护服务与现行的域名注册实名制并不矛盾，其保护的对象仅限于注册人的私密信息，注册人的姓名并不属于该隐私保护服务范畴，更不能以此变相替代域名的真实持有人而产生所谓的“代持域名”，否则应由域名管理机构处载明的域名注册人承担相应的法律责任。

Basic Facts

案情介绍

Plaintiff-Appellant: Moody's Quality Management Co., Ltd. ("Moody's")

Defendant-Appellant: Hangzhou Aiming Internet Co., Ltd. ("Aiming") and Hangzhou 22net.Inc. ("22net")

上诉人（原审原告）：穆迪质量管理公司（简称穆迪公司）

上诉人（原审被告）：杭州爱名网络有限公司（简称爱名公司）、浙江贰贰网络有限公司（简称贰贰公司）

Moody's, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Moody's Corporation, has rights to the trademark, business name, and prior domain name of "Moody's". 22net and Aiming rushed to register the disputed domain name but did not actually use it and tried to sell it. Moody's thus appealed to the Hangzhou Internet Court, requesting that 22net and Aiming transfer the "moodys.cn" domain name to Moody's for registration and use, jointly and severally compensate Moody's for economic losses of RMB 500,000 and reasonable costs of RMB 208,100.

穆迪公司系美国穆迪公司的全资子公司，其就“Moody’s”的商标、企业名称、在先域名等享有权利。贰贰公司与爱名公司抢注了争议域名，且未实际使用并进行出售。穆迪公司遂向杭州互联网法院起诉，请求判令：贰贰公司与爱名公司将“moodys.cn”域名转移给穆迪公司注册和使用，并承担连带责任，共同赔偿其经济损失50万元及合理费用208100元。

The Hangzhou Internet Court held that, according to the Whois information, the disputed domain name got registered in 2012 under the then name of 22net at that time, so 22net was the registrant of the disputed domain name. Aiming and 22net used to use the same business name, and had not changed their domain name registration information, website copyright information and other publicized information, but allowed the registrant of the disputed domain name to be in an unclear state. Therefore, they should jointly bear the legal responsibility for the adverse consequences arising from the registration and use of the disputed domain name. The two Defendants had registered and put on public sale the "Moody's" trademark, enterprise name and domain name, which had high awareness, indicating that they did not intend to put them into proper commercial use, but to obtain improper benefits. Therefore, it should be found that the two Defendants had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, and their acts had constituted unfair competition.

杭州互联网法院经审理认为，根据Whois信息可知，争议域名于2012年注册时的注册人为贰贰公司的当时名称，故贰贰公司为争议域名注册人。爱名公司和贰贰公司曾互用同一企业名称，对域名注册信息、网站版权信息等公示信息未进行更改，放任争议域名注册人处于不明确状态，故二者对于因争议域名注册、使用产生的不利后果应共同承担法律责任。二被告将穆迪公司具有较高知名度的“Moody’s”商标、企业名称和域名注册为域名并进行公开出售，表明其不具有投入正当商业使用之意图，而是为了获取不正当的利益，应当认定二被告注册、使用争议域名具有恶意，故其行为构成不正当竞争。

The two Defendants asserted that they had only provided temporary template services and that the services were in compliance with the privacy protection policy. The Court held that the privacy protection policy only required that important registration information not be displayed through public channels, which did not conflict with the real name registration of domain names. Also, the name of a registrant was not within the scope of the privacy protection service, and the act of the two defendants, namely, the holding of the domain name in the disguise of privacy did not comply with the law. At the same time, the two Defendants had not submitted the registration agreement of party not involved in this case and the temporary template service agreement, nor had they submitted the real name information of registrant to the domain name management agency for proof, so the available evidence did not prove that they had provided template services for privacy protection. Further, the Defendants, as service providers specializing in domain name registration, had and should have known that the temporary template was for temporary use only and that the actual registrant should be changed within a short period of time. Instead, the disputed domain name had not been changed for as long as 8 years, and the two Defendants had hoarded a large number of domain names for 20 years, with the registrants all shown to be Aiming, so the situation where a holder was holding a large number of domain names with the information related to the domain names unchanged was not consistent with common sense, and lacked justification.

二被告主张其仅提供临时模板服务，且该服务符合隐私保护政策。法院认为，隐私保护政策仅是不通过公开途径显示重要注册信息，与域名实名注册并不冲突，且注册人的姓名并不属于该隐私保护服务范畴，二被告以隐私为名实际变相代持域名的行为不符合法律规定。同时，二被告未提交案外人用户注册协议和临时模板服务协议，亦未就此向域名管理机构提交注册人实名信息提交证明，故现有证据无法证明其系为隐私保护而提供模板服务。再者，被告作为专门从事域名注册的服务商，知道也应当知道临时模板仅系临时使用，应在短时间内变更实际注册人。而争议域名在长达8年的时间未进行变更，且二被告20年内大量囤积域名，注册人均显示为爱名公司，这种存在大量域名持有人对域名相关信息不予变更的情形与常理不符，亦缺乏合理性。

In summary, the court ruled at first instance that the disputed domain name should be registered and used by the Plaintiff, while the two Defendants should compensate the Plaintiff RMB 80,000 as reasonable expenses to defend their rights.

综上，法院一审判决：争议域名由原告注册、使用；二被告赔偿原告维权合理支出8万元。

Moody's, 22net and Aiming refused to accept the judgment of the first instance and appealed to Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court. Mediation was reached in the second instance, agreeing that 22net and Aiming would transfer the disputed domain name to Moody's while Moody's would waive its claim for damages and reasonable expenses.

穆迪公司、贰贰公司、爱名公司均不服一审判决，向杭州市中级人民法院提起上诉。二审达成调解，约定贰贰公司、爱名公司将争议域名转让给穆迪公司，穆迪公司放弃赔偿损失及合理费用的主张。

Typical Significance

典型意义

The profitability of investing in domain names and the loopholes in the industry management have brought various chaos in the domain name registration industry, such as holding a name for another person/entity, cybersquatting and registration without use, and the situation where domain names are transferred after hosting happens frequently, leading to the continuous growth of dispute cases over domain name ownership and unfair competition in judicial practice; The improper application of "temporary template services" and "privacy protection policy" by domain name registration service providers has made domain name registrants "invisible", which, to a certain extent, has contributed to the current chaos in domain names and requires urgent regulation.

投资域名的可获利性、行业管理的漏洞，使得域名注册行业出现代持、抢注、注而不用等种种乱象，域名托管后被转移的情形频发，导致司法实践中域名权属、不正当竞争纠纷案件持续增长；域名注册服务商不当适用“临时模板服务”和“隐私保护政策”，使得域名注册人成为“隐形人”，一定程度上助长了当前的域名乱象，亟需得到规制。

By sorting out the common problems in typical cases of domain name ownership and unfair competition disputes, this case has analyzed and investigated challenging issues such as the determination of domain name registrant, the nature of "temporary template", the boundary between domain name real name system and privacy protection, and clarified the corresponding adjudication rules, which have a positive effect on regulating domain name registration services, safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of domain name right holders, and promoting the establishment of a healthy and sustainable order in the domain name registration industry.

本案通过梳理典型域名权属、不正当竞争纠纷案件中的共性问题，针对域名注册人的确定、“临时模板”的性质、域名实名制与隐私保护的边界、域名侵权的认定标准等疑难问题进行了分析研究，明确了相应裁判规则，对规范域名注册服务、维护域名权利人的合法权益，推进建立健康、可持续的域名注册行业秩序具有积极的指引作用。

英文投稿及市场合作：

[e-mail]

18911449529（微信同号）

往期推荐