腾讯腾讯公司电话

Page1(HongKongOffice)ADMINISTRATIVEPANELDECISIONCaseNo.
HK-1300520Complainant:TencentTechnology(Shenzhen)LimitedRespondent:Asia-PacificTechnologyGroupCo.
LimitedDisputedDomainNames:(1)qqvoice.
com(2)qqvoice.
net(3)qqvoice.
org1.
THEPARTIESTheComplainantisTencentTechnology(Shenzhen)Limited,withprincipalplaceofbusinessinShenzhen,China.
TheauthorizedrepresentativeoftheComplainantintheproceedingsisMr.
ChangjieChen,RouseConsultancy(Shanghai)Limited,1101TeemTower,208TianheRoad,TianheDistrict,Guangzhou510620,China.
TheRespondentsisAsia-PacificTechnologyGroupCo.
LimitedofUnit5035/FSilvercordTower230CantonRoad,TsimShaTsui,Kowloon,HongKong.
TheauthorizedrepresentativeoftheComplainantintheproceedingsisMr.
LuoMingjunofDehengLawOffices,12/F.
,BuildingB,FocusPlace,19FinancialStreet,Beijing,100033,China.
2.
THEDISPUTEDDOMAINNAMEANDTHEREGISTRARThedomainnamesare:(1);(2);and(3),registeredwithOnlineNIC,Inc.
,of909MarinaVillagePkwy#236,Alameda94501,UnitedStates(hereinafter,"theRegistrar").
3.
PROCEDURALHISTORYOn17July2013,theComplainantsubmittedaComplaintinEnglishtotheHongKongOfficeofAsianDomainNameDisputeResolutionCentre(ADNDRC).
On17July2013,theADNDRCtransmittedbyemailtotheRegistrararequestforregistrarverificationinPage2connectionwiththedisputeddomainname.
On22July2013,theRegistraracknowledgedthisnotificationbyemail,andprovidedthefollowinginformation:OnlineNIC,Inc.
istheregistrarforthedisputeddomainnames;(1)theregistrantofthedomainnameisAsia-PacificTechnologyGroupCo.
Limited/asiapacific;(2)thelanguageoftheregistrationagreementforthedomainnameisEnglish;(3)theUniformDomainNameDisputeResolutionPolicy("UDRP",hereinafter,"thePolicy")andtheRulesforUDRP(hereinafter,"theRules")applytothedisputeddomainname;and(4)thedomainnameswillremainlockedduringthependingproceeding.
TheADNDRCverifiedthattheComplaintsatisfiedtheformalrequirementsofthePolicy,theRulesandtheADNDRCSupplementalRulesforUDRP(hereinafter,the"SupplementalRules").
InaccordancewiththeRules,paragraphs2(a)and4(a),theADNDRCformallynotifiedRespondentoftheComplainton23July21013.
TheRespondentsubmittedaresponsetotheADNDRCforextendtheresponsedateto20Auguston8August2013.
TheComplainantfiledanobjectiontotheRespondent'srequestwiththeADNDRCon12August2013,theRespondentsubsequentlysubmittedtheresponseinChinesetotheADNDRCon12August2013.
TheComplainantdecidedtohavetheComplaintdecidedbyonepanelist.
On21August2013,theADNDRCappointedDr.
TimothySzeaspanelistinthismatter.
ThePanelfindsthatitwasproperlyconstituted.
InaccordancewiththeADNDRCRules,intheabsenceofexceptionalcircumstancesasdeterminedbythePanelinitssolediscretion,thePanelshallforwarditsdecisionontheComplainttotheProviderwithinfifteen(15)businessdaysofitsappointmentonorbefore4September2013.
4.
FACTUALBACKGROUNDA)TheComplainantTheComplainantTencentTechnology(Shenzhen)Limited,establishedinNovember1998andheadquarteredinShenzhenChina,isoneofthelargestcomprehensiveInternetserviceprovidersinChina,withannualbusinessamountofRMB43,893million(approx.
USD6,983million)in2012.
TheComplainantmainlyprovidesmassmedia,entertainment,Internetandmobilephonevalue-addedservicesandoperatesonlineadvertisingservices.
Itsdiverseservicesincludesocialnetworks,webportals,e-commerce,andmultiplayeronlinegames,andtheComplainanthasdevelopedverypopularproductssuchasWeixinforgroupandvoicechatting,QZone,QQMicro-Blog,QQGame,QQMusic,andQQMail.
TheComplainantalsooperatesthewell-knowninstantmessengerQQandrunsoneofthelargestwebportalsinChina,QQ.
com,whichwaslistedastheTop5LargestWebsitesin2005(Annex12).
Page3TheinstantmessengerQQwasreleasedin1999aimingatbuildingacomprehensiveandmulticulturalonlineplatformforInternetusers.
QQenablesitsuserstochatonline(includingvideochatting),transmitvoiceinstantly,sendfilesonlineandofflineandachieveothercomprehensivecommunicationfunctions.
ThelargestInternetsocietywasbroughtintoexistencebytheComplainantinChinathroughdevelopmentoftheaforementionedQQplatformswithsuccessinmeetingdemandsofInternetusersincommunication,news,entertainment,electronicbusinessandsoon.
QQhasbecomethemostwidelyusedinstantmessagingsoftwareinChinasinceitsreleasein1999.
TheComplainantstartedtoexpanditsbusinessthroughAsiaandtheUSAin2009,andQQsoftwareislaunchedinEnglish,FrenchandJapaneselanguagestomeetneedsofmultilingualusers.
Asof31December2012,theComplainanthas798.
2millionactiveQQaccounts,withapeakof176.
4millionsimultaneousonlineusers.
QQranksNo.
2ofglobalvirtualcommunitieswithmorethan100millionactiveusers(Annex13).
AccordingtolatestChinaInstantMessagingResearchReportsissuedbythefamousiResarchConsultingGroup,QQisthemarketleaderofinstantmessaginganditsmarketsharefarexceedsthatoftheNo.
2inthepastyears(respectively7.
6%in2008-2009,6.
8%in2009-2010,and4.
4%in2010-2011):YearMarketShareAnnexSeptembertoDecember200694%142007-200895%152008-200978%162009-201076.
2%172010-201187.
6%18TheComplainantregistered,amongothers,thefollowingtrademarksinChina(Annex4-8):MarkNo.
ClassGoods/ServicesValidityDateQQ196282538messagesending;communicationsbytelephone;cellulartelephonecommunication;communicationsbycomputerterminals;transmissionofcomputeraidedmessagesandimages;electronicmail;facsimiletransmission;informationabouttelecommunication;pagingservices(radios,telephonesorothermeansofelectroniccommunication)2003.
02.
28-2023.
02.
27QQ305813138IdenticaltotheabovetrademarkNo.
19628252003.
04.
28-2023.
04.
27QQ350838televisionbroadcasting;messagesending;communicationsby2005.
01.
07-2015.
01.
06Page4823telephone;cellulartelephonecommunication;communicationsbycomputerterminals;transmissionofcomputeraidedmessagesandimages;electronicmail;facsimiletransmission;informationabouttelecommunication;pagingservices(radios,telephonesorothermeansofelectroniccommunication);electronicbulletinboardservices(telecommunicationsservices);providingtelecommunicationsconnectionstoaglobalcomputernetwork;providinguseraccesstoaglobalcomputernetwork(serviceproviders)QQ46657049telephoneset;computersoftware;etc.
2009.
02.
07-2019.
02.
06QQ语音350879738identicaltotheabovetrademarkNo.
35088232005.
01.
07-2015.
01.
06Meanwhile,theComplainant,viaitsaffiliatedoverseascompany,alsoholdsthefollowingtrademarks(Annex9-11):MarkCountryNo.
ClassRegistrationDateQQSouthAfrica2002/20306382002.
12.
23QQIndonesia561736382004.
02.
03QQUnitedStatesofAmerica2972934382005.
07.
19B)TheRespondentApreliminaryquestioninthiscaseconcernstheidentityoftheappropriateRespondentorRespondents.
TheComplaint,filedwiththeADNDRCaccordingtotherecordoftheWHOISdatabaseofDomainName,theRespondentAsia-PacificTechnologyGroupCo.
LimitedislistedastheRegistrant(Annex2).
AccordingtotherecordoftheWHOISdatabaseofDomainNamesand,theRespondentasiapacificislistedastheRegistrant(Annex2).
Paragraph3(c)oftheRulesprovidesthatacomplaintmayrelatetomorethanonedomainname,providedthatthedomainnamesareregisteredbythesamedomain-nameholder.
Inthiscase,theComplainantfindsthattheDomainNamesareregisteredbythesamedomain-nameholderforthefollowingreasons:Page5(i)DomainName,registeredbytheRespondentAsia-PacificTechnologyGroupCo.
Limited,sharesanidenticalemailaddressyafengwangster@gmail.
comandtelephonenumber+852.
35887903tothoseofregisteredbytheRespondentasiapacific;(ii)DomainNameisredirectedtoawebsiteundertheDomainName(Annex3).
Fortheabovereasons,theComplainantisoftheopinionthat"Asia-PacificTechnologyGroupCo.
Limited"and"asiapacific"isthesameentityandthethreeDomainNamesareregisteredbythesameholder.
TheComplainantthereforerequestsconsolidationofseparatecomplaints;otherwise,itwouldplaceanunjustifiableeconomicburdenontheComplainanttoberequiredtoinitiatetwoseparateadministrativeproceedings,anditwouldbeaburdenontheadministrativeprocesstorequireduplicationofeffort.
SeeAdobeSystemsIncorporatedv.
DomainOZ,WIPOCaseNo.
D2000-0057;Yahoo!
Inc.
andGeoCitiesv.
DataArtCorp.
,etal,WIPOCaseNo.
D2000-0587.
Inthepresentcase,Asia-PacificTechnologyGroupCo.
Limited,wasdulyidentifiedbytheRegistrarastheholderofthedomainnames.
Moreover,thelegalrepresentativeoftheRespondenthasacknowledgedreceiptoftheComplainantandhasrepliedtotheComplainant.
Inlightoftheinformationabove,thePanelrecognizedAsia-PacificTechnologyGroupCo.
LimitedasthesoleRespondent.
5.
PARTIES'CONTENTIONSA)Complainant'sContentions(1)TheDomainNamesareidenticalwithorconfusinglysimilartotheComplainant'smarksinwhichtheComplainanthasrights;TheComplainantcontendsthatthedisputeddomainnames;;andareidenticalorconfusinglysimilartotheComplainant'sregisteredtrademarkscomprisingofthewords"QQ".
"QQ"isabrandnamecoinedbytheComplainantandexclusivelyassociatedwiththeComplainant.
TheComplainantenjoysrightsinanumberofQQtrademarksasstatedabove.
TheQQtrademarksenjoyveryhighandbroadreputationinChina,evenallovertheworldafterovertenyears'useandcontinuousadvertisementbytheComplainant.
TheQQtrademarkwasrecognizedaswell-knowntrademarkbytheChinaStateTrademarkOfficeinApril2009(Annex21).
InSeptember2011,theComplainantwasawardedtheTrademarkInnovationAwardbytheWorldIntellectualPropertyOrganizationandtheChinaStateAdministrationforIndustryandCommerce(superiorofChinaStateTrademarkOffice)tocommendtheinnovation,creativeness,strongdistinctivenessandreputationoftheComplainant'strademarks(Annex22).
Page6PreviousUDRPdecisionshaveestablishedthatsuffixtoadomainname(suchas".
com",".
net"or".
org")isamustforincorporationofadomainnameanddoesnotfunctioninidentifyingadomainname.
"qqvoice",consistingoftheComplainant'sdistinctiveandwell-knownmark"QQ"andagenericword"voice",servesasthemostprominentpartofeachoftheDomainNames.
UDRPprecedentshaveheldthatadditionofmerelygenericwordingtoatrademarkinadomainnamewouldbesufficienttoafindingofconfusingsimilarity.
SeeHoffmann-LaRocheInc.
v.
Wei-ChunHsia,WIPOCaseNo.
D2008-0923,"wrappingawell-knownmarkwithmerelydescriptiveorgenericwordsisadoomedrecipeforescapingaconclusionthatthedomainnameisconfusinglysimilartothewell-knownmark".
SeealsoOkiDataAmericas,Inc.
v.
ASD,Inc.
,WIPOCaseNo.
D2001-0903,"Thefactthatadomainnamewhollyincorporatesacomplainant'strademarkissufficienttoestablishidentityorconfusingsimilarityforthepurposeofthePolicy,despitetheadditionofotherwordstosuchmarks".
Inaddition,themarkQQisacoinedwordandahighlydistinctivemarkwhichwillattractInternetusers'attention.
IncorporationoftheComplainant'sQQtrademarkinentiretyintheDomainNamesinitselfestablishesthattheDomainNamesareconfusinglysimilartotheComplainant'strademark.
SeeEAuto,L.
L.
C.
v.
TripleS.
AutoPartsd/b/aKungFuYeaEnterprises,Inc.
,WIPOCaseNo.
D2000-0047,"Whenadomainnameincorporates,initsentirety,adistinctivemark,thatcreatessufficientsimilaritybetweenthemarkandthedomainnametorenderitconfusinglysimilar".
Moreover,theword"voice"means"语音"inChineselanguage,andcombinationof"qq"and"voice"hencecorrespondstotheexactChinesetranslationoftheComplainant'strademark"QQ语音",whichwasregisteredon7January2005andpredatesregistrationoftheDomainNamesin2009and2011respectively.
UUCallpromotedonthecorrespondingwebsitesfallswithinthegoods/servicesscopeoftheComplainant'strademarksQQandQQ语音.
TheabovefurtherreinforcestheconfusionastotheaffiliationbetweentheComplainantandtheDomainNames,andhascauseddefactoconfusion.
Searchresultsof"QQVoice"viasearchengineGOOGLEincludeanumberofpostsenquiringtherelationshipbetweenQQVoice/theRespondentandtheComplainant(Annex23).
TheDomainNames,andarethereforeconfusinglysimilartotheComplainant'strademarks.
(2)HolderoftheDomainNameshasnorightsorlegitimateinterestsinrespectoftheDomainNames;Ithasbeenanacceptedpracticethatmereregistrationdoesnotestablishrightsorlegitimateinterestsinadomainnamesoastoavoidtheapplicationofparagraph4(a)(ii)ofthePolicy.
SeePotomacMillsLimitedPartnershipv.
GambitCapitalManagement,WIPOCaseNo.
D2000-0062.
TheRespondentthusdoesnotenjoyanyrightsorlegitimateinterestsintheDomainNamesmerelybecauseofitsregistrationoftheDomainNames.
QQVoiceisneitheratradenamenorbrandnameoftheRespondent.
TheRespondenthasneverbeenlicensedorauthorizedtousethetrademarkQQortouseittoregisterdomainnames.
TothebestoftheComplainant'sknowledge,theRespondentdoesnotholdanyQQtrademarksortrademarksincorporatingtheletters"QQ"(Annex24-25).
AssociatedcompaniesoftheRespondent,includingGuangzhouHetaiInformationTechnologyCo.
,Ltd,Page7triedtoregister"QQVoice"astrademarkwiththeChinaStateTrademarkOffice,butbothapplicationswererejectedduetoitssimilaritytotheComplainant'strademarkQQ(Annex26-28).
TheRespondentthusdoesnothavetrademarkrighttotheDomainNames.
TheRespondent,beingwellawareoftheComplainant'swellknowntrademarkQQ,stillregisteredtheDomainNamesandusedtheircorrespondingwebsitestopromotecompetitiveproducts/servicestotheComplainant.
SuchactsprecludetheRespondentfromabonafideofferingofgoodsorservices.
SeeIntelCorporationv.
Ox90,WIPOCaseNo.
D2002-0010,"RespondentwaswithoutdoubtawareofComplainant'smarkwhenitregisteredthedisputeddomainname,andhasnobasistoclaimabonafideofferingofgoodsandserviceswithoutnoticeofadispute".
TheDomainNamewasregisteredinAugust2011,andcurrentlydoesnotresolvetoanyactivewebsite.
PassiveholdingoftheDomainNamedoesnotconstitute"legitimatenon-commercialorfairuse".
SeeTeachersInsuranceandAnnuityAssociationofAmericav.
WreaksCommunicationsGroup,WIPOCaseNo.
D2006-0483.
Inthecurrentcase,noplausibleexplanationexiststosuggestthepossibilityofanycircumstancesofthetypespecifiedinparagraph4(c)ofthePolicy,orofanyothercircumstancesgivingrisetoarighttoorlegitimateinterestoftheRespondentintheDomainNames.
TheRespondent'spassiveholdingoftheDomainNameanditsuseoftheDomainNamesandisnotabonafideusepursuanttoparagraph4(c)ofthePolicy,andthereisnoindicationthattheRespondenthasbeencommonlyknownbytheDomainNames.
Inall,theRespondenthasnorightsorlegitimateinterestsintheDomainNames.
Itiswell-establishedbypreviousUDRPdecisionsthatonceacomplainantestablishesaprimafaciecasethatarespondentlacksrightsorlegitimateinterestsinadomainname,theburdenofproductionshiftstotherespondent.
SeeCroatiaAirlinesd.
d.
v.
ModernEmpireInternetLtd,WIPOCaseNo.
D2003-0455.
(3)TheDomainNameshavebeenregisteredorarebeingusedinbadfaith.
AspreviouslystatedinthisComplaint,theComplainantenjoysveryhighreputationinChinaandabroad.
TheComplainantfindsitinconceivablethattheRespondent,engagedinsimilarandcompetitivebusinesstotheComplainant,wouldnothavehadactualnoticeofthemarkQQatthetimeofregisteringtheDomainNames.
Furthermore,theRespondentregisteredthreedomainnamesincorporatingtheComplainant'sdistinctivemarks,anditisinconceivablethattheRespondentdidnotknowthemarkQQ.
SeeAccor,SoLuxuryHMCv.
JimGreen,WIPOCaseNo.
D2011-1773,"ItisobviousthatRespondenthadComplainant'smarksinmindwhenregisteringtheDomainNames.
ItwouldbeacoincidenceofepicproportionsifRespondenthadsomehowregisteredfiveDomainNames…"TheRespondentwasclearlyawareoftheComplainant'spriorrightstothemarkQQ.
AQQnumber(1745212343)islistedascontactoftheRespondentonwww.
qqvoice.
comandtheRespondentisusingQQMicro-Blogtoservecustomersandpromotebusiness(Annex29).
TheRespondentknowsverywelloftheComplainantandisactivelyusingtheComplainant'sproductsincludingQQandQQMicro-Blog.
AsthePaneldecidesinSkypeLimitedv.
XiaochuLi,WIPOCaseNo.
D2005-0996,ifatrademarkisacoinedwordwithnomeaningorconnectionwiththegoodsorservicessoldPage8underit,arespondentcouldnotbeusingthemarkinadescriptivesense,andarespondentmustprovideplausibleexplanationsinhischoiceofthedisputeddomainnameswhichareconfusinglysimilartothemark.
Intheabsenceofcontraryevidencefromtherespondent,themarkisnotonethattraderscouldlegitimatelyadoptotherthanforthepurposeofcreatinganimpressionofanassociationwiththecomplainant.
NoPlausibleexplanationexistsastowhytheRespondentselectedthemarkQQaspartoftheDomainNamesotherthantoexploitthegoodwilloftheComplainantanditstrademarktomakeillegitimateinterests.
DespitecontactbytheComplainantviatheceaseanddesistletter(Annex30),theRespondenthasneverprovidedanyevidencetojustifyitsregistrationanduseoftheDomainNames,andbadfaithregistrationcouldbeinferred.
SeePauleKav.
PaulaKorenek,WIPOCaseNo.
D2003-0453,"TheRespondentknewshewasusingacommercialname(protectedasatrademark)becauseshecopiedit…ThatknowledgeissufficienttoconstitutebadfaithregistrationunderthePolicy,eveniftheRespondentassertsthatshedidnotthinkshewasinfringinganyrights.
Ignoranceofthelawisnoexcuse".
SeealsoGovernmentEmployeesInsuranceCompanyv.
Gonzalez,WIPOCaseNo.
D2011-1130,"Whatdoesshowbadfaith,however,istheverydomainnameitself…Complainant'smarkis'distinctiveandnotaneverydaywordorphrase…acoinedtermthatistodayknownprimarilyasanidentifierofComplainant'sproductsandservices.
Thereis,orcouldbe,nocontentionthatRespondentselectedthedisputeddomainnameforitsvalueasagenerictermorrandomcombinationofletters".
TheRespondent'suseoftheDomainNamesandhascauseddefactoconfusionandmisidentificationastotheaffiliationofUUCall/QQVoicetotheComplainant.
TheRespondent'spurposeofregisteringtheDomainNamesistotradeonthefameoftheComplainant'swell-knowntrademarkQQ,inordertoattract,forcommercialgain,InternetuserstovisitthecorrespondingwebsitesundertheDomainNames,bycreatingalikelihoodofconfusionwiththeComplainantanditstrademarkQQastothesourceofUUCall/QQVoiceandalsoitsaffiliationwiththeComplainant.
ThisconclusionwasreachedbythePanelinAlliedBuildingProductsCorpv.
Alliedbuildingproducts.
comc/oWhoisIdentityShield,WIPOCaseNo.
D2006-0833,"itisthereforeareasonableinferencefromthisthattheRespondentknewoftheComplainant'sbusinessandwantedtoexploitthenametodivertInternettrafficfromit,probablytobenefitfrompay-by-clickarrangementswithalternativesuppliers".
TheRespondent,byusingtheDomainNamestooffercompetitiveproducts,istryingtoprofitfromthediversionofInternetusersbyconfusionbetweentheDomainNamesandtheComplainant'smarkQQ,anddisruptsbusinessoftheComplainant.
Suchuseconstitutesbadfaith.
SeePauleKav.
PaulaKorenek,WIPOCaseNo.
D2003-0453,"incasesofaverystrongornotoriousmarkwhencompetitiveproductsorservicesareconcerned…afindingofgoodfaithusemaybeprecluded".
AlsoinResearchinMotionLimitedv.
DustinPicov,WIPOCaseNo.
D2001-0492,thePanelfoundthat"theDomainNameissoobviouslyconnectedwiththeComplainantanditsservicesthatitsveryusebysomeonewithnoconnectiontotheComplainantsuggests'opportunisticbadfaith'.
"WhentheComplainantbecameawareoftheRespondent'sregistrationoftheDomainNames,itimmediatelysentaceaseanddesistlettertotheRespondenton22August2011,requestingtheRespondenttostopusingQQVoiceandtheDomainNames.
TheRespondenthoweverdidnotrespondtotheletterbutchangedthenameofQQVoiceto云话.
FailureoftheRespondenttocomplywiththeComplainant'sdemandsisindicativeofbadfaithuse.
SeeDeFelskoCorporationv.
MichaelKennedy,WIPOCaseNo.
D2012-1283,"theresponsetothe'ceasePage9anddesist'letterofpostingablog,insteadofattemptingtovindicatehisconduct,hasallthehallmarksofbadfaith".
Meanwhile,passiveholdingoftheDomainNamecanberecognizedasuseinbadfaithaccordingtoanumberofUDRPcases.
SeeTelstraCorporationLimitedv.
NuclearMarshmallows,WIPOCaseNo.
D2000-0003andIngersoll-RandCo.
v.
FrankGully,d/b/aAdvcomren,WIPOCaseNo.
D2000-0021.
TheRespondent'sregistrationofthethreeQQVoicedomainnamespreventstheComplainantfromreflectingitstrademarkQQintheDomainNames.
Moreover,theRespondent,withoutexplicitorimpliedconsentfromtheComplainant,isusingamarkQQVoicewhichissimilartotheComplaint'sregisteredtrademarkQQonitsproductsandcorrespondingwebsites,whichconstitutestrademarkinfringementpursuanttotheP.
R.
C.
TrademarkLaw(Annex31).
TheRespondent'sregistrationoftheDomainNamesincorporatingawell-knowntrademarkanduseofthemtodiverttrafficandmisleadInternetusersisindicativeofbadfaithinaccordancetothegoverningjudicialinterpretations(Annex32-33).
InfringingactsoftheRespondentsuggestbadfaithandhaveprecludesitfromabonafideregistrationanduseoftheDomainNames.
Tosumup,theDomainNameshavebeenregisteredandarebeingusedinbadfaithbytheRespondent.
B)RespondentTheRespondentdeniesallofthecontentionsraisedbytheComplainantintheComplaint.
TheRespondent'scontentionsmaybesummarizedasfollows:一、亚太科技使用qqvoice作为域名,未引起网络用户对其与腾讯商标的混淆.
1.
亚太科技所推出的软件"云话"的功能属于网络电话服务,腾讯公司本身在网络电话软件的开发以及相关服务市场上并无太大建树,也鲜有自行开发网络电话软件并进行宣传、推广与营销的行为.
因此,QQ产品及商标即使有着很高的影响力,却与网络电话服务领域并无太大关联.
相反,亚太科技的云话软件自2004年就已经推向市场,截止目前已经在网络电话市场中积累了相当的影响力与商誉.
就网络电话市场而言,腾讯公司及QQ软件、商标的影响力与亚太科技及云话软件相比,实际上处于劣势.
2.
腾讯在申诉中指出,亚太科技所持有的域名中完整包含了腾讯拥有的注册商标QQ,足以导致混淆.
腾讯认为"QQ"属于创新词,因此拥有独特的含义.
但是根据腾讯公司所持有的商标显示,其所持有的全部商标均为大写的"QQ",这种对大写字母QQ所享有的商标并不能延伸至小写字母"qq",更不能经行扩展到包含有两个q的全部字母组合.
即使QQ真的因腾讯的长期使用含有了独特的意义,也并不代表qq同样具有类似含义.
亚太科技注册的域名为qqvoice.
com,从外观上与腾讯公司的注册商标并无相似之处,仅仅是在字母的使用上同样包含了两个q,且为小写字母.
qq仅为2个特定英文字母的重复,可以表达众多含义,由于域名只能由英文组成,因此将2个英文字母q重叠并用于域名中的情况并不少见.
无论从任何角度,也不能认定qqvoice.
com这一域名中包含了腾讯的注册商标"QQ".
如果单单由于一个该域名中含有两个q就认定其含有腾讯的注册商标,不仅毫无根据,且与常理不符.
Page103.
在百度及其他主要搜索引擎搜索qqvoice,均会在搜索结果靠前位置显示"QQVoice网络电话(原UUCall)"字样.
另外,"云话"软件的Logo系亚太科技自主设计,在所有方面与QQ商标不存在相似之处,这一Logo以最显著的方式表现在qqvoice.
com的主页中.
基于这两点,qqvoice完全不存在与QQ商标及相关软件混淆的可能.
4.
商标和域名具有不同的作用和内涵.
商标是用于区别商品或服务的标识,使用在相同或相似的商品或服务上,并只能用于特定的商品或服务上.
如我国商标法规定,注册商标专用权,以核准注册的商标和核定使用的商品为限.
域名是用于解决IP地址对应的一种方法,是为了方便人们使用因特网而创设的,它并不直接与商品或服务相联系,且不能离开因特网而独立存在.
因此,腾讯公司以其商品和商标的知名度来推断云话利用了其知名度侵犯了其权利,是没有合理合法的依据的.
二、亚太科技对qqvoice域名享有合法权利和利益.
腾讯认为亚太科技对所持有的争议域名并不拥有权利或合法利益.
腾讯认为亚太科技虽然持有争议域名,但并不当然拥有权利或合法利益,并举出相关判例加以佐证.
这种观点无论从逻辑上还是实际上都存在严重错误.
1.
qqvoice.
com域名系从第三方手中通过支付合理对价合法够得,qqvoice.
net/qqvoice.
org域名系通过合法程序,支付合理对价在正规供应商处注册,相关全部过程不存在任何违法之处,依法律、法理、商事习惯均应系争议域名完整的权利及合法利益所有人.
2.
亚太科技自2011年7月26日以来,正常、合理使用争议域名,并在域名指向的网站上提供正规、诚信的服务,其各种行为均符合所在地区的法律规定,从任何角度都不能否认亚太科技对争议域名的合法权益.
3.
亚太科技在使用争议域名之前,就已经发布公告,向其用户及公众表明争议域名与其拥有的域名uucall.
com之间的转换关系,绝不存在任何以争议域名误导、欺骗用户的意图.
三、亚太科技公司在网络电话领域使用qqvoice域名不存在恶意.
1.
腾讯指出,亚太科技使用争议域名,目的是希望用户对该域名产生误认,误以为其产品系腾讯公司的产品,并起到吸引用户的目的.
而根据亚太科技提供的证据材料可知,自使用争议域名以来,亚太科技自身花费了大量资金(2011年7月26日至今花费1000多万元,其中350万元左右已提供合同及发票)用作自身产品云话的宣传,并始终仅专注于网络电话软件方面的推广与营销.
正如上所述,腾讯在网络电话市场中并无太大建树,而亚太科技的软件云话则是网络电话软件中的佼佼者.
所谓"亚太科技使用争议域名来使用户误以为产品系腾讯所开发",无疑是在说一个行业中的领先者,利用了一个甚至并未涉足该行业的企业的行业内声誉,而这种论断,是根本站不住脚的,也是与事实完全不符的.
2.
腾讯指出了亚太科技许多其他方面的行为,用以证明亚太科技存在恶意.
腾讯以其发出的函件并未被理会为由,主张亚太科技存在恶意.
但实际上,亚太科技所使用的域名与腾讯公司毫无关联,没有义务对腾讯发出的函件予以理会,更无理由仅因对方毫无根据的主张而停止对域名的使用.
腾讯以亚太科技消极持有qqvoice.
org域名为由,认为亚太科技对争议域名的持有与消极持有,阻碍了QQ商标在域名中的显示.
而事实上,亚太科技注册qqvoice.
org域名但未使用,其目的正是在于为了避免自身的特定字母组合构成的域名被他人恶意使用,属于合法注册的防御性域名,完全没有阻止任何人的任何商标出现在域名中的意思.
并且,腾讯公司所有产品或服务,其域名均Page11为xxx.
qq.
com(例如mail.
qq.
com/music.
qq.
com/game.
qq.
com等).
qqvoice这一特定字母组合构成的域名,根本无法造成对QQ商标在域名中显示的障碍.
6.
DISCUSSIONANDFINDINGSBeforeengaginginthethreefolddiscussionofparagraph4(a)ofthePolicy,thePanelwillneedtoaddresssomepreliminaryissues.
A)PreliminaryIssues1)LanguageoftheProceedingsAccordingtoArticle11(a)oftheRules,"[u]nlessotherwiseagreedbytheParties,orspecifiedotherwiseintheRegistrationAgreement,thelanguageoftheadministrativeproceedingshallbethelanguageoftheRegistrationAgreement,subjecttotheauthorityofthePaneltodetermineotherwise,havingregardtothecircumstancesoftheadministrativeproceeding.
"Inthepresentcase,thelanguageoftheregistrationcontractisEnglish.
TheRespondenthassubmitteditsResponseinChinese,theComplainantwouldraisenoobjection.
ThePanelhasreviewedandconsideredtheRespondent'sChinese-languageResponsewiththesameeffectasiftheResponsehadbeensubmittedinEnglish.
Nevertheless,alargenumberofevidenceprovidedbythepartiesisinChinese.
Thisraisestheissueoftheadmissibilityofsuchevidence.
AccordingtoArticle10(d)oftheRules,"[t]hePanelshalldeterminetheadmissibility,relevance,materialityandweightoftheevidence.
"Article11(b)oftheRulesalsoprovidesthat"[t]hePanelmayorderthatanydocumentssubmittedinlanguagesotherthanthelanguageoftheadministrativeproceedingbeaccompaniedbyatranslationinwholeorinpartintothelanguageoftheadministrativeproceeding".
Inthepresentcase,thePanelcanreadandunderstandChineseperfectly.
Thus,thePanelconsidersthatevidenceprovidedinChineseisadmissible.
2)ApplicableLawAccordingtoArticle15(a)oftheRules,"[a]PanelshalldecideacomplaintonthebasisofthestatementsanddocumentssubmittedandinaccordancewiththePolicy,theseRulesandanyrulesandprinciplesoflawthatitdeemsapplicable.
"Inthepresentcase:-theRespondentisregisteredinHongKong,withitsprincipalbusinessoriginatedfromMainlandChina;-asitisstatedintheComplaint,theComplainanthasitsheadquarterinShenzhen,China;and-bothpartiesperformtheessentialoftheireconomicactivitiesinChina.
ThusthePanelconsidersthat,beyondthepolicy,itshalltakeintoconsiderationprinciplesofChineselaw.
Page12B)FindingsTheICANNUniformDomainNameDisputeResolutionPolicyprovides,atParagraph4(a),thateachofthreefindingsmustbemadeinorderforaComplainanttoprevail:(i)Respondent'sdomainnamemustbeidenticalorconfusinglysimilartoatrademarkorservicemarkinwhichComplainanthasrights;and(ii)Respondenthasnorightsorlegitimateinterestsinrespectofthedomainname;and(iii)Respondent'sdomainnamehasbeenregisteredandisbeingusedinbadfaith.
1)IdenticalorConfusinglySimilarThefirstelementthattheComplainantmustestablishisthatthedisputeddomainnamesareidenticalwithorconfusinglysimilartotheComplainant'strademarkrights.
Therearetwopartstothisinquiry:theComplainantmustdemonstratethatithasrightsinatrademarkand,ifso,thedisputeddomainnamesmustbeshowntobeidenticalorconfusinglysimilartothetrademark.
TheComplainantownstrademarkregistrationsfororincorporating"QQ"inSouthAfrica,Indonesia,andUnitedState,includinginthePeople'sRepublicofChina("PRC").
ThePanelfindsthattheComplainanthasrightsinthemarkacquiredthroughregistration.
The(Chinesetrademarkregistrationnumber:3508823etal)and(trademarkregistrationnumber:3508797)markshasbeenregisteredinvariousclassinChina,andtheComplianthasawidespreadreputationinInternet,mediaandtelecommunicationindustryintheworld.
Thedisputeddomainnames,&comprisesthemarkinitsentirety,thedomainextension,inthiscase,and,shouldbedisregarded.
(Rohde&SchwarzGmbH&Co.
HGv.
PertshireMarketing,LtdWIPOCaseNo.
D2006-0762).
,consistingoftheComplainant'smarkandagenericword"voice",thePanelacceptthatadditionofmerelygenericwordingtoatrademarkinadomainnamewouldbesufficienttoafindingofconfusingsimilarity.
SeeHoffmann-LaRocheInc.
v.
Wei-ChunHsia,WIPOCaseNo.
D2008-0923,"wrappingawell-knownmarkwithmerelydescriptiveorgenericwordsisadoomedrecipeforescapingaconclusionthatthedomainnameisconfusinglysimilartothewell-knownmark".
SeealsoOkiDataAmericas,Inc.
v.
ASD,Inc.
,WIPOCaseNo.
D2001-0903,"Thefactthatadomainnamewhollyincorporatesacomplainant'strademarkissufficienttoestablishidentityorconfusingsimilarityforthepurposeofthePolicy,despitetheadditionofotherwordstosuchmarks".
ThePanelaccepttheComplainant'scontention,thatthemarkisacoinedwordandahighlydistinctivemarkwhichwillattractInternetusers'attention.
IncorporationoftheComplainant'strademarkinentiretyintheDomainNamesinitselfestablishesthattheDomainNamesareconfusinglysimilartotheComplainant'strademark.
SeeEAuto,L.
L.
C.
v.
TripleS.
AutoPartsd/b/aKungFuYeaEnterprises,Inc.
,WIPOCaseNo.
D2000-0047,"Whenadomainnameincorporates,initsentirety,adistinctivemark,thatcreatessufficientsimilaritybetweenthemarkandthedomainnametorenderitconfusinglysimilar".
ThePanelalsofinds,thattheword"voice"means"语音"inChineselanguage,andcombinationofandhencecorrespondstotheexactChinesetranslationofthePage13Complainant'strademark,whichwasregisteredon7January2005andpredatesregistrationoftheDomainNamesin2009and2011respectively.
UUCallpromotedbytheRespondentonthecorrespondingwebsitesfallswithinthegoods/servicesscopeoftheComplainant'strademarksand.
Accordingly,thePanelfindsthattheComplainanthassatisfiedthefirstconditionunderparagraph4(a)(i)ofthePolicy.
2)RightsorLegitimateInterestsThesecondelementofaclaimofabusivedomainnameregistrationanduseisthattherespondenthasnorightsorlegitimateinterestsinrespectofthedomainname(Policy,paragraph4(a)(ii)).
ThePolicyenumeratesseveralwaysinwhicharespondentmaydemonstraterightsorlegitimateinterests:"Anyofthefollowingcircumstances,inparticularbutwithoutlimitation,iffoundbythePaneltobeprovedbasedonitsevaluationofallevidencepresented,shalldemonstrateyourrightsorlegitimateintereststothedomainnameforpurposesofparagraph4(a)(ii):(i)beforeanynoticetoyouofthedispute,youruseof,ordemonstrablepreparationstouse,thedomainnameoranamecorrespondingtothedomainnameinconnectionwithabonafideofferingofgoodsorservices;or(ii)you(asanindividual,business,orotherorganization)havebeencommonlyknownbythedomainname,evenifyouhaveacquirednotrademarkorservicemarkrights;or(iii)youaremakingalegitimatenoncommercialorfairuseofthedomainname,withoutintentforcommercialgaintomisleadinglydivertconsumersortotarnishthetrademarkorservicemarkatissue.
"(Policy,paragraph4(c))Asiswellestablishednow,theseareillustrativeonlyandarenotanexhaustivelistingofthesituationsinwhicharespondentcanshowrightsorlegitimateinterestsinadomainname.
Further,theonusofprovingthisrequirement,likeeachelement,fallsontheComplainant.
ThePanelhasrecognizedthedifficultiesinherentindisprovinganegative,however,especiallyincircumstanceswheremuchoftherelevantinformationisin,orlikelytobein,thepossessionoftheRespondent.
Accordingly,itisusuallysufficientforacomplainanttoraiseaprimafaciecaseagainsttherespondentunderthisheadandanevidentialburdenwillshifttotherespondenttorebutthatprimafaciecase(see,e.
g.
,WIPOOverviewofWIPOPanelViewsonSelectedUDRPQuestions,SecondEdition("WIPOOverview2.
0"),paragraph2.
1.
).
Inthiscase,theComplainantstatesthatithasnotauthorizedtheRespondenttouseitstrademarksand/or.
ThePanelconsidersthattheComplainanthasmadetherequisiteprimafacieshowinginthiscase.
TheburdenofcomingforwardwithevidenceofrightsoralegitimateinterestthusshiftstotheRespondent.
TheRespondentassertsthatthedisputeddomainnameswereownedbytheRespondent,therelevantregistrationfeesweredulypaid,andregisteredproperlyattheRegistrarsince26JulyPage142011.
ThedisputeddomainnameshasbeenusedandoperatedbytheRespondentinaccordingtothelocallawsandregulations.
TheRespondentisentitledtousethedomainnamestoofferservicesconsistentwiththeirongoingbusinessas,anIPphoneprovider.
Forthereasonsstatedabove,thePanelhasrecognizedthatmereregistrationofadomainname,evenonethatiscomprisedofaconfirmeddictionarywordorphrase(whichmaybegenericwithrespecttocertaingoodsorservices),maynotofitselfconferrightsorlegitimateinterestsinthedomainname.
Normally,inordertofindrightsorlegitimateinterestsinadomainnamebasedonthegenericordictionarymeaningofawordorphrasecontainedtherein,thedomainnamewouldneedtobegenuinelyusedoratleastdemonstrablyintendedforsuchuseinconnectionwiththerelied-uponmeaning(andnot,forexample,totradeoffthird-partyrightsinsuchwordorphrase)"(WIPOOverviewofWIPOPanelViewsonSelectedUDRPQuestions,SecondEdition("WIPOOverview2.
0"),paragraph2.
2.
).
Inthepresentcase,theRespondenthasn'tshownthathemakesagenuineuseofsincethisdomainnameisusedinconnectionwiththeservicesprovidedbytheComplainant.
TheRespondenthasnotusedormadepreparationstousethedomainnamesinconnectionwithabonafideofferingofgoodsandservices.
TheRespondentwasnevercommonlyknownas"QQ.
"AGooglesearchturnsupnoresultsrelatingtotheRespondent.
Ontheotherhand,GoogleresultsturnupmanyhitsrelatedtotheComplainant,whoownsthetrademarkin"QQ".
ThereissimilarlynoevidencethattheRespondentismakingalegitimatenon-commercialorfairuseofthedomainnameswithoutintentforcommercialgain.
Accordingly,thePanelfindsthattheComplainanthassatisfiedthesecondconditionunderparagraph4(a)(ii)ofthePolicy.
3)RegisteredandUsedinBadFaithUnderthethirdrequirementofthePolicy,theComplainantmustestablishthatthedisputeddomainnameshasbeenbothregisteredandisbeingusedinbadfaithbytheRespondents.
i)RegistrationinBadFaithTheComplainantsubmitsthatthedomainnamehasbeenregisteredbytheRespondentinbadfaithonvariousgrounds.
First,theComplainantcontendsthattheRespondent'sregistrationofthedomainnamewasmotivatedsolelytotakeadvantageoftheComplainant'sreputationinthe/trademarksandtherebymakeundueprofits.
TheprerequisiteofthisassertionisthattheRespondenthadknowledgeoftheComplainant,its/trademarksanditsrightsinthedisputeddomainnames.
Asstatedearlier,theRespondentacquiredthedomainnamesinJuly2011.
Atthattime,theRespondentprobablyknewtheexistenceoftheComplainantanditstrademarks.
Page15AccordingtothematerialprovidedbytheComplainant,thataQQnumber(1745212343)islistedascontactoftheRespondentonwww.
qqvoice.
comandtheRespondentisusingQQMicro-Blogtoservecustomersandpromotebusiness.
ThePanelfindstheRespondentknowstheComplainantandisusingtheComplainant'sproductsincludingQQandQQMicro-Blog.
Moreover,thisPanelalreadyfoundthatthedomainnameswereconfusinglysimilartothetrademarks.
Furthermore,atthetimetheRespondentacquiredthedomainnameinJuly2011,he/sheshouldbeenawareofthetrademarks,whichwasfirstreleasedin1999,registeredin2003,whichwasbeforetheRespondenthasstarteditsservicesin2004.
TheRespondentcouldnothaveacquiredthedomainnamesforthegenericandsuggestivevalueofthedomainname.
ThisPanelisoftheviewthattheComplainanthasestablishedthattheRespondenthaschosentoacquirethedomainnametocreateconfusionwithComplainants'trademarks.
ii)UseinBadFaithThePanelhasobservedthattheRespondent,byusingtheDomainNamestooffercompetitiveproducts,istryingtoprofitfromthediversionofInternetusersbyconfusionbetweentheDomainNamesandtheComplainant'smarkQQ,anddisruptsbusinessoftheComplainant.
Suchuseconstitutesbadfaith.
SeePauleKav.
PaulaKorenek,WIPOCaseNo.
D2003-0453,"incasesofaverystrongornotoriousmarkwhencompetitiveproductsorservicesareconcerned…afindingofgoodfaithusemaybeprecluded".
AlsoinResearchinMotionLimitedv.
DustinPicov,WIPOCaseNo.
D2001-0492,thePanelfoundthat"theDomainNameissoobviouslyconnectedwiththeComplainantanditsservicesthatitsveryusebysomeonewithnoconnectiontotheComplainantsuggests'opportunisticbadfaith'.
"Meanwhile,passiveholdingoftheDomainNamecanberecognizedasuseinbadfaithaccordingtoanumberofUDRPcases.
SeeTelstraCorporationLimitedv.
NuclearMarshmallows,WIPOCaseNo.
D2000-0003andIngersoll-RandCo.
v.
FrankGully,d/b/aAdvcomren,WIPOCaseNo.
D2000-0021.
TheRespondent'sregistrationofthethreeQQVoicedomainnamespreventstheComplainantfromreflectingitstrademarkQQintheDomainNames.
ThisPanelisoftheviewthattheRespondent'suseofthedomainnameshasmisledconsumerstobelievethatthedisputeddomainnamesanditsoperationweresomehowsponsoredoraffiliatedwiththeComplainant.
SuchaconductfallswithinArticle4(b)(iv)ofthePolicy:"byusingthedomainname,youhaveintentionallyattemptedtoattract,forcommercialgain,Internetuserstoyourwebsiteorotheron-linelocation,bycreatingalikelihoodofconfusionwiththecomplainant'smarkastothesource,sponsorship,affiliation,orendorsementofyourwebsiteorlocationorofaproductorserviceonyourwebsiteorlocation".
Inthecircumstancesofthepresentcase,afterhavingcarefullyconsideredtheComplainant'ssubmissions,thePanelfindsthattheComplainant:-hasprovedonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthatthedomainnameswereregisteredinbadfaith;-hasdemonstratedthatthedomainnameswereusedinbadfaith.
Insummary,theRespondent,bychoosingtoregisterandusethedisputeddomainnames,whichareconfusinglysimilartotheComplainant'swell-knowntrademarks,intendedtorideonthegoodwilloftheComplainant'strademarksinanattempttoexploit,forcommercialgain,internetusersdestinedfortheComplainant.
IntheabsenceofevidencetothecontraryandrebuttalfromtheRespondent,thechoiceofthedisputeddomainnamesandtheconductofthePage16Respondenttowhichthedisputeddomainnamesresolvesisindicativeofregistrationanduseofthedisputeddomainnamesinbadfaith.
ThePanelthereforeholdsthatthisissufficienttoestablishbadfaithunderparagraph4(a)(iii)ofthePolicy.
7.
DECISIONOnthebasisoftheforegoingconsiderations,thePaneldecidesthat:ThedisputeddomainnamesareidenticalorconfusinglysimilartoatrademarkorservicemarkinwhichtheComplainanthasrights;andtheRespondenthasnorightsorlegitimateinterestsinrespectofthedomainnames;andthedomainnameshasbeenregisteredandisbeingusedinbadfaith.
Accordingly,pursuanttoparagraph4(a)ofthePolicyand15oftheRules,thePaneldecidesthattheDisputedDomainNames,&shouldbetransferredtotheComplainant.
专家组裁定投诉人的投诉成立,被投诉人应将争议域名,以及转移给投诉人.
Dr.
TimothySze(SolePanelist)Dated:4September,2013