观点 | CNDRP下提交域名争议的时限
关于作者
吉曼宁（Emmanuel Gillet）博士
IP Twins法律顾问
IP Twins是一家法国公司，专门从事公司域名管理和数字品牌保护。自2002年以来，吉律师一直从事数字品牌保护相关的业务。他也是与知识产权有关的替代性争议解决方法的专家。他有巴黎的律师资格，获得法律博士学位，并取得知识产权和国际仲裁硕士学位。
樊 堃
新南威尔士大学法学院副教授；史密夫斐尔中国国际商法与国际经济法（CIBEL）中心成员；认证调解员，仲裁员，域名专家
樊教授专攻国际仲裁、调解、比较法研究和法律文化研究并荣获多个学术研究奖项。在加入新南威尔士大学法学院和CIBEL中心前，樊堃副教授曾在加拿大麦基尔大学法学院和香港中文大学法学院任职, 也曾做哈佛燕京学院的访问学者。樊堃副教授曾领导及参与多个国际研究项目，并经常应邀参加国际学术会议并给众多知名大学和培训机构讲课。除学术研究外，樊教授在ADR领域拥有丰富的实践经验。她曾在多个国际仲裁和域名争议中担任过律师、专家证人、仲裁庭秘书、仲裁员和域名专家。
1. 《解决办法》第二条的作用
《解决办法》第二条的目的是激励知识产权持有人在合理时间内行使其权利。[2]
首先，三年的时限和《民法总则》中关于诉讼时效的期限一致。[3]
其次，鼓励商标所有人在合理的时间内采取行动与其他旨在打击滥用域名注册的法院外程序的目标相同：为商标所有人提供一个可以迅速解决纠纷的平台。这与《程序规则》第一条公正性、方便性及快捷性的目的也是一致的。
对于域名来说，反应时间是决定性的。域名本身的使用除了构成应该受到谴责的抢注域名的行为以外，还可以构成民事侵权（例如商标侵权和不正当竞争），甚至刑事犯罪（例如假冒，欺诈（网络钓鱼），网络攻击， 或身份盗用）。司法外域名案件中有很多情形都需要商标所有人立即作出反应。
1.2 商标持有权人的反应
商标权人的反应时间取决于其部署的防御策略。该防御策略受多种因素影响：威胁的程度，商标本身（尤其是从显著性的角度），可能的地区优先级（很少），还有对于绝大多数公司而言，用于保护品牌的预算。需要迅速作出反应的防御策略要求商标权人使用监视软件，以便在第一时间发现和商标相同或相似的域名,以及任何可能对其商标构成威胁的域名使用行为。
为了确定商标权人的反应时间，笔者在香港国际仲裁中心（HKIAC）的域名裁决中抽取了两个样本。样本A包含200个在2016年3月7日至2019年6月10日之间提出申请的域名裁决。样本B包括49个在2019年6月18日至2020年9月22日之间提出申请的域名裁决 （见表一）。
表二：域名的使用和反应时间的相关性
从投诉人的反应时间的进一步分析可以看出，在时限为两年的时候，31个投诉在时限到期一周之内提交申请，构成了样本A的15.5%。而样本B中几乎没有申请是在时限快到期才提交的。[5]
笔者的数据分析显示，“最后时限”提出的投诉在样本B中的比例（4％）远远低于样本A的比例（15.5％）。尽管就时限延长的影响得出明确的结论还为时过早，但我们可以看出延长时限给商标权人提供了缓冲。而商标权人的平均反应时间在时限延长前后大致相同 (参见表三)。
表三：商标权人的平均反应时间
投诉的延迟提交应引起域名专家的注意。在一些案件中，域名专家主动考虑域名争议可否受理。虽然《解决办法》不要求专家组审查投诉书可否受理，这一问题还是值得重视的[6]，特别是在临近时限到期提交的案件[7]。投诉书在域名时限到期的同一天提交时，专家组应当考虑域名争议是否受理。在样本A中有一些这样的案件。被投诉人也可以时限为由要求拒绝受理。[8] 在这种情况下，有专家组引用《程序规则》的第49条。[9] 后者规定“初始日期不包括在时限的计算内”。
需要强调的是，一旦超过了时限，在没有任何其他可用且迅速的补救措施的情况下，域名的成本会突然急剧增加。因此，商标权人最好尽快提出投诉。
2. 域名被转让后时限的起算时间
香港国际仲裁中心以往的裁决中显然更倾向于第二种观点。DCN-1500641一裁决中的观点被专家组反复确认[10]。该观点基于以下几点理由：
首先，《解决办法》第九条第（一）款不仅涵盖域名的注册，还包括域名的受让。
其次，在《 HKIAC域名争议解决指南》第6.1段“续展，重新注册和转让”支持以下域名转让构成了新的注册的观点。
“将域名转让给后续持有人，通常涉及在二级市场上直接销售或拍卖域名，被认为是新注册。在北京苏宁尚品电器有限公司诉Eryue案（ADNDRC案号HK-1500764，2015年9月17日）中，专家小组指出，即使前任曾善意使用域名，该善意也不能涵盖后续域名购买者的行为（hkiac.org）。”
从理论上讲，该解决方案有两个理由。首先，从合同法的角度，域名转让导致了新的注册合同，由于先前的合同不再相关，因此取消了先前的合同。其次，在侵权法方面，新的域名持有人具有使用，指导和控制权；他是域名的保管人，因此，必须为其使用负责。
[8]参见DCN-1800823 ; DCN-1700768 ; DCN-1700761。在这方面，商标权人应意识到，越来越多的域名抢注者对法律工具及其漏洞有很好的掌握。
[10]参见DCN-1700766; DCN-1700771; DCN-1700789; DCN-1800804; DCN-1800824; DCN-1800829; DCN-1800848; DCN-1900883; DCN-1900892; DCN-1900893。
Opinion: Time Bar
Article 2 of the China ccTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (CNDRP)Time is antagonistic to intellectual property and, paradoxically, it is the time limit of intellectual property that guarantees its social acceptance. Time is therefore consubstantial with intellectual property. There is another temporal mechanism antagonistic to intellectual property: that of time limitation as a mode of extinction of remedies aimed at putting an end to infringements of intellectual property rights. In this regard, the regulation for the out-of-court resolution of top-level domain names of the People's Republic of China (.cn and. 中国) is quite unique. This method of dispute resolution, adopted by the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC), is mainly governed by two instruments: the China ccTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (CNDRP Policy) and the related rules of procedure China ccTLD Dispute Resolution Policy Rules (CNDRP Rules). Unlike other regulations for the out-of-court resolution of disputes relating to domain names[1], article 2 of the CNDRP sets a time bar. Since June 18, 2019, the complainant must act within three years from the date of registration of the domain name. Previously, it was two years. It is important to bear in mind that Article 2 applies retroactively to all domain names, even if they have been registered before June 18, 2019.
1. The function of article 2 of the CNDRP
1.1. Encouraging brand owners to act quicklyArticle 2 aims to incentivize the parties to exercise their rights within a reasonable time[2]. This objective calls for two observations.First, the three-year time bar is consistent with the time limit under the General Principles of the Civil Law (three years). [3]Secondly, to encourage trademark owners to act within a reasonable period of time meets the same objective as all other out-of-court proceedings whose purpose is to combat abusive domain name registrations: to provide trademark owners with a forum where cases can be settled expeditiously. In this regard, it is useful to recall that the objective of promptness is contained in Article 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the CNDRP.The reaction time can be decisive in domain names. Indeed, the use of a domain name can constitute, not only the reprehensible act of cybersquatting in itself, but also a tort (such as trademark infringement and unfair competition), and even a criminal offense (such as counterfeiting, fraud (phishing), cyberattacks or identity theft). The extrajudicial domain name case law includes countless cases which required an immediate reaction from trademark owners.1.2. Responsiveness of brand owners
The reaction time of trademark holders depends on the defense strategy deployed, which evolves according to multiple factors: the degree of the threat, the trademark itself (in particular from the point of view of its distinctive power), the possible territorial priorities (rarely, China is not one) and, for the vast majority of companies, the budget allocated to the defense of the brand. A defense strategy requiring a short reactivity period requires the use of surveillance software developed to detect the existence of domain names similar or identical to the trademark concerned and any use or development concerning a domain name that can be threatening to the trademark.
In order to determine the degree of responsiveness of brand owners, the author took two samples of decisions from those rendered under the auspices of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (hereafter, HKIAC). Sample A contains 200 decisions for which complaints were filed between March 7, 2016 and June 10, 2019. Sample B includes 49 decisions whose complaints were filed between June 18, 2019 and September 22, 2020 (see Table 1).Table 1: Definition of samplesThe author’s data analysis indicates that complaints filed "at the last minute" are much less numerous in Sample 2 (4%) than in Sample 1 (15.5%). While it is too early to draw definitive conclusions about the effects of extending the limitation period, it is clear that extending the time bar reduces pressure for brand owners. Interestingly, the average reaction time is roughly the same, despite the extension of the time bar (see Table 3).
Table 3: Average reaction time of brand owners
The late filing of a complaint should attract the attention of the domain name panelist. In a few cases, the panelist raises, ex officio, the question of the admissibility of the complaint. Although the CNDRP does not require the panelist to verify the admissibility of the complaint, it would be reasonable to be concerned[6], especially when the deadline is approaching[7]. In any event, it seems desirable to consider this verification as a duty when the complaint is filed on the same day as the deadline expires. This situation is not uncommon in Sample A and brand owners can expect objections from the defendant on the grounds of time bar.[8] When the complainant was filed on the same day as the deadline expires, a few panelists usefully referred to Article 49 of the Rules of Procedure[9]. The latter specifies that "the initial date is excluded in the time limit".
It is imperative to keep in mind that once the limitation period has passed, in the absence of any other available and expeditious remedy, the cost of the domain name increases suddenly and sharply. Therefore, it is preferable for the trademark owner to file a complaint as soon as possible.
2. The starting point of the limitation period when a domain name is transferredArticle 2 of the CNDRP designates the date of registration of the domain name as the starting point of the limitation period. The central question is the following: should the transfer of the domain name be treated as a new registration? One view is considers that change in ownership does not constitute a new registration. Accordingly, all complaints filed after 3 years from the date of the registration of the original domain names is time barred, and must be dismissed. Another view is that the transfer should be assimilated to a new registration, which resets the time bar.
The jurisprudence formed by the decisions of the HKIAC clearly favors the second option. The benchmark decision, DCN-1500641, has been repeatedly upheld[10]. This solution is based on several foundations：First, Article 9 (a) of the CNDRP covers not only the registration of the domain name, but also its acquisition. Second, in the paragraph entitled “6.1 Renewal, Re-registration and Transfer” of the Guide to HKIAC Domain Name Dispute Resolution supports the position that the acquisition of a domain name constitutes a new registration:“transfer of the domain name to subsequent holders, which usually involves direct sales or auction of a domain name on the secondary market, has been considered a new registration. In Beijing Suning Shangpin Appliance Co. Ltd. v. Eryue (ADNDRC Case No. HK-1500764, September 17, 2015), the panel stated that even if the predecessor has previously used the domain name in good faith, this good faith can not be carried over to cover acts of the subsequent domain name purchaser” (hkiac.org).This position is consistent with the approach taken by the panelists of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO):“the transfer of a domain name registration from a third party to the respondent is not a renewal and the date on which the current registrant acquired the domain name is the date a panel will consider in assessing bad faith. This holds true for single domain name acquisitions as well as for portfolio acquisitions.” (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview, para. 3.9).
On the theoretical level, the solution finds two justifications. First, in terms of contract law, the transfer of the domain name, which results in a new registration contract, cancels the previous contract since it is no longer relevant. Secondly, in terms of tort law, the new holder of the domain name has the use, direction and control; he is the custodian of the domain name and, as such, must answer for the use he makes of it.
[1] World Intellectual Property Organization, Final Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, April 30, 1999: "The WIPO Interim Report recommended that a time bar to the bringing of claims in respect of domain names (for example, a bar on claims where the domain name registration has been unchallenged for a designated period of years) should not be introduced" (para. 197).[2] See DCN-1900883.
[3] Article 188 of the General Principles of the Civil Law in China.
[4] Almost all of the decisions rendered under the three-year deadline.
[5] One complaint was considered inadmissible by the HKIAC because it had been filed out of time (Case DCN-1900941).
[6] Some panelists do not hesitate to arrogate to themselves the power to verify that the complaint was filed on time (see, for example: DCN-1700727; DCN-1700772; DCN-1700784; DCN- 1800800; DCN-1800821; DCN-1800873; DCN-1900877; DCN-1900886; DCN-1900890).
[7] See DCN-1800825; DCN-1900887; DCN-1900919; DCN-1900890.
[8] See, for instance, DCN-1800823; DCN-1700768; DCN-1700761. In this regard, brand owners should be aware that a growing number of cybersquatters have a good grasp of legal tools and their loopholes
[9] DCN-1800825; DCN-1800823; DCN-1800800; DCN-1700772; DCN-1800823; DCN-1800825.
[10] Among the samples A and B, see: DCN-1700766; DCN-1700771; DCN-1700789; DCN-1800804; DCN-1800824; DCN-1800829; DCN-1800848; DCN-1900883; DCN-1900892; and DCN-1900893.
HKIAC域名争议解决在线研讨会
2020年10月12日 HKIAC洞察 - 提起域名投诉之第一要素：“相同或者混淆性相似”
2020年10月26日 HKIAC洞察 - 提起域名投诉之第二要素: 域名持有人的“权利或合法利益”
2020年11月2日 HKIAC洞察 - 提起域名投诉之第三要素: “恶意”行为
相关阅读