In the Internet era a domain name is more than a web address; it is a core badge of corporate identity. As cyberspace expands, domain-name conflicts are multiplying and have become a front-line issue in IP protection. Below we walk through the legal pitfalls and landmark cases that define this new battlefield.
I. The Main Types of Domain-Name Disputes
-
Cybersquatting
Registering a domain that identical or confusingly similar to a well-known trademark or company name.
Example: Rolex S.A. v Beijing ChinaNet Information Co. The defendant registered “rolex.com.cn”. The court held the registration infringed the ROLEX mark and was likely to mislead consumers.
-
Confusingly-Similar Domains
A domain that is not identical but so similar to a mark or trade name that consumers are likely to be confused.
Example: Watsons Enterprises v an individual registrant of “moneyback.cn”, which was held to be confusingly similar to Watsons’ prior MONEY-BACK mark and domain. The registrant had no legitimate interest and the name was ordered transferred.
-
Reverse Domain-Name Hijacking
A trademark owner uses (or misuses) its mark to pressure or sue a good-faith domain holder in an attempt to seize the domain. While designed to protect mark-owners, it can work injustice against legitimate registrants.
Example: Guangzhou YouMou v XiLinMen Furniture. YouMou had registered “xilinmen.com” identical to XiLinMen’s marks, offered to sell the domain and blocked the mark-owner’s own registration. The court found bad-faith cybersquatting and unfair competition, but emphasised that a mark-owner must not abuse its rights to hijack domains held in good faith.
II. The Legal Framework in China
-
Trademark Law of the PRC
Unauthorised use of an identical or similar sign (including a domain) for identical or similar goods/services constitutes trademark infringement.
-
Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the PRC
Registering or using a domain in a manner that causes confusion, dilutes goodwill, or misleads the public is an act of unfair competition.
-
CNNIC Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy
Registrants must ensure their domains do not infringe third-party rights. The Policy provides expedited administrative proceedings before panels appointed by the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC).
III. Leading Cases in Detail
-
Rolex v Beijing ChinaNet
Facts: Defendant registered “rolex.com.cn” without authorisation.
Holding: Identical to the famous ROLEX mark, no legitimate interest, registered to attract traffic. Court ordered cancellation and damages.
-
Watsons v “moneyback.cn” Registrant
Facts: Registrant’s domain reproduced the distinctive MONEY-BACK element of Watsons’ loyalty programme.
Holding: Confusing similarity plus absence of rights or legitimate interest amounted to infringement and unfair competition.
-
YouMou v XiLinMen
Facts: YouMou registered “xilinmen.com” and offered to sell it to XiLinMen for a high price.
Holding: Evidence of bad-faith registration primarily for profit, constituting cybersquatting and unfair competition; domain ordered transferred and damages awarded. Court also warned mark-owners against abusive reverse-hijacking claims.
IV. Preventive Tactics for Brand-Owners
-
Register Early
Secure domain variants (”.com”, “.cn”, “.com.cn”, etc.) at the same time you file your trademark.
-
Watch & Police
Use domain-watch services and internal audits to spot copy-cats quickly; designate a domain manager or outside counsel.
-
Train Your Team
Regular legal briefings on domain and trademark rules ensure staff spot problems early and respond correctly.
V. Closing Thought
Domain-name disputes are no longer niche IT issues—they are central to IP strategy. By registering defensively, monitoring proactively, and enforcing smartly, businesses can keep their digital front door firmly locked while preserving consumer trust and brand value. Let’s work together to safeguard intellectual property and keep cyberspace orderly.
