终止权维权难？环球音乐终止权纠纷最新进展；“童话大王”郑渊洁成功维权皮皮鲁商标；

一周概览

Overview

Focus

1. New amendments of Korean IPR laws came into effect on April 20韩最新修订知识产权法于4月20日起实施

2. SPC officially reported on 2021 judicial protection of IPR and released two lists of exemplary cases

最高法：《中国法院知识产权司法保护状况白皮书（2021年）》，以及2021年中国法院10大知识产权案件和50件典型知识产权案例发布

IP Practice

3. The first patent linkage case was heard

全国首例药品专利链接诉讼案件宣判

4. Wavy Baby may be “waived baby” due to trademark infringement

Wavy Baby恐因涉嫌商标侵权而遭销毁

5. Memoji in iMessage is involved in patent infringement

iMessage的Memoji功能涉嫌专利侵权？苹果公司遭起诉

6. Employees of SK Innovation are charged for trade secret theft

SK新能源员工涉嫌窃取LG能源商业秘密

7. Latest development in Universal Music’s termination rights litigation

终止权维权难？环球音乐终止权纠纷最新进展

8. “King of fairy tales” in China Zheng Yuan jie succeeded in “Pipilu” trademark right maintaining

“童话大王”郑渊洁成功维权皮皮鲁商标

9. Precedential case: U.S. Emerson wins $250,000 bad faith trademark suit in China

首例未使用即被认定商标恶意抢注案件：美国艾默生获赔25万美元

10. Procurement service can be infringement withoutlegality examination

网上代购未履行商品审查义务可涉及侵权

Case Analysis

11. Procurement service can be infringement without legality examination

反不正当竞争典型案例：涉“MOODY'S”网络域名不正当竞争纠纷案

Focus

1

New amendments of Korean IPR laws came into effect on April 20韩最新修订知识产权法于4月20日起实施

On April 20, 2022, various amendments to the Korean Patent Act, Trademark Act, and Design Protection Act came into effect. This is to improve the IPR laws to be more friendly to the applicant and to remedy the mistakes actively of applicants and to maximize the opportunity to acquire rights. In terms of limitation period, the amendments overcome the limitation of one can only use “force majeure” that cannot be attributable by the applicant or a representative as a defense to restore rights when the non-extendable deadline has lapsed, to adapt to the special period of COVID-19 pandemic where fail to contact his or her attorney due to a sudden quarantine or being affected by the virus is quite common. Another remarkable change made by the amendments is the adoption of so-called “Separation Application” in Patent Act, avoiding the inconvenience brought by “Whole Application”, in which a patent application may be rejected as a whole even it is determined to be partially patentable only because of the disqualification of the other parts. Moreover, the new amendments allow a clerical error to be corrected by requesting a re-examination for a patent even after the application is allowed.

4月20日，最新修订的韩国《专利法》、《商标法》、《外观设计专利法》正式生效。此次修订是为了进一步完善知识产权法律，使其对申请人更加友好，并允许申请人积极补救错误，在最大限度内给予申请人获得权利的机会。在时效期限方面，新修订克服了过去一旦错过不可延展期限，只能以不可归咎于申请人或代理人的“不可抗力”作为抗辩以恢复权利的局限，以适应新冠疫情特殊时期的特殊需要——在该特殊时期中，因为突然被隔离或者感染病毒而无法联系上律师因为错过最后期限的现象十分常见。另一个引人注意的修改是《专利法》中“分离申请”制度的采用，以避免按照过去法律中“整体申请”的规则，一个专利申请中明明部分被判定为可授予专利却会因其他部分不符合专利授予条件而被一并驳回带来的麻烦。此外，新法修改后，允许申请人通过发起重审申请来更正申请中的笔误。即使该专利申请已得到授予，申请人仍可通过此种方式来修改错误。

2

SPC officially reported on 2021 judicial protection of IPR and released two lists of exemplary cases

最高法：《中国法院知识产权司法保护状况白皮书（2021年）》，以及2021年中国法院10大知识产权案件和50件典型知识产权案例发布

On April 21, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) officially launched the 14th "National IP Publicity Week" and released the "Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in China’s Courts (2021)", as well as the 2021 top 10 intellectual property cases and 50 typical intellectual property cases in Chinese courts, showing the achievements in judicial protection of IPR in the past year. As introduced, the number of IPR cases filed and concluded by courts both exceed 600,000, up 22.33% and 14.71% respectively compared to 2020, which is a new climax. In response to the problems of "proof difficulty, low compensation, high cost and long processing time", a methodology includes the exclusion and preservation of evidence has been applied to reduce the burden of proof for right holders. Also, the amount of of compensations have climbed continuously with the application of punitive damages, as infringers were applied punitive damages in 895 cases this year. In addition, a number of major cases have been heard by the local courts nationwide with focus on punishing crimes such as counterfeit of registered trademarks of pandemic prevention materials, online movie piracy, infringement of trade secrets in pivotal technology fields, and the manufacture and sale of counterfeit seeds.

4月21日，最高人民法院举行新闻发布会，正式启动第14次“知识产权宣传周”活动，并发布《中国法院知识产权司法保护状况白皮书（2021年）》，以及2021年中国法院10大知识产权案件和50件典型知识产权案例，展示了人民法院过去一年的知识产权司法保护成果。最高法有关负责人介绍，2021年，人民法院受理、审结知识产权案件数量再创历史新高，双双突破60万件，比2020年分别上升22.33%和14.71%。针对“举证难、赔偿低、成本高、周期长”等问题，人民法院通过依法积极适用证据妨碍排除、证据保全等，减轻权利人举证负担；通过适用惩罚性赔偿等，不断提高赔偿数额，2021年在895件案件中对侵权人判处了惩罚性赔偿。此外，各地法院审理了一批重大案件，重点惩治假冒防疫物资注册商标、互联网电影盗版、侵犯关键技术领域商业秘密、种子制假售假等犯罪。

IP Practice

3

The first patent linkage case was heard

全国首例药品专利链接诉讼案件宣判

On April 15, Beijing Intellectual Property Court rejected claims of the plaintiff Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and ruled that the defendant’s (Wenzhou Haihe Pharmaceutical Co.) generic drug doesn’t fall into the protection range of the pharmaceutical patent. As Chugai is the patent owner of “ED-71 Preparation" (No. 200580009877.6), as well as the marketing licenser of the related patented drug "Edexcel Soft Capsules" mainly used to treat osteoporosis, it has registered the related drug and the patent on China's listed drug patent information registration platform. However, the defendant was found to have applied for registration of the generic drug named "Adiosclerosol Soft Capsules", and made a Class 4.2 declaration that it did not fall into the scope of protection of the relevant patent rights, triggering the lawsuit. As introduced, it is the first patent linkage case since the implementation of the new "Patent Law”.

More detailed information about the case is available here:

http://www.chinaiptoday.com/post.html?id=1671

4月15日，北京知识产权法院公开宣判了原告中外制药株式会社诉被告温州海鹤药业有限公司确认是否落入专利权保护范围纠纷一审案件，法院经审理认为，涉案仿制药并未落入涉案专利权的保护范围，并判决驳回原告的诉讼请求。本案的涉案专利为中外制药株式会社的第200580009877.6号，名称为“ED-71制剂”（简称涉案专利）的专利权，并且，中外制药也是相关上市专利药品“艾地骨化醇软胶囊”的上市许可持有人，该药品主要用来治疗骨质疏松。涉案药品和专利已登记于中国上市药品专利信息登记平台。然而，原告发现，被告温州海鹤药业有限公司向国家药监部门申请注册了名称为“艾地骨化醇软胶囊”的仿制药上市许可申请，并中国上市药品专利信息登记平台就上述仿制药作出了第4.2类声明，即其仿制药未落入相关专利权保护范围，因而提起了本次诉讼。据介绍，本案是新《专利法》生效实施以来，全国首例获宣判的药品专利链接诉讼案件。

有关本案的更多详情请转至：

http://www.chinaiptoday.com/post.html?id=1671

4

Wavy Baby may be “waived baby” due to trademark infringement

Wavy Baby恐因涉嫌商标侵权而遭销毁

On April 14, Vans filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against MSCHF, accusing the Brooklyn art collective of ripping off the Vans Old Skool sneaker for the Wavy Baby, a MSCHF sneaker collaboration with Tyga that’s set to release on April 18. The complaint, filed in New York’s eastern district court, calls MSCHF’s latest shoe an “effort to confuse consumers, unlawfully siphon sales from Vans, and intentionally damage Vans’ valuable intellectual property rights.” The Vans lawsuit calls to attention the similarities between its popular Old Skool shoe and the Wavy Baby, a sneaker clearly based on the Vans’ design. In an earlier promotional video posted by Tyga on Tiktok, a pair of Vans Old Skool was put in the microwave and "heated" up to become the "Wavy Baby". Vans says in the complaint that it sent out cease and desist letters to Tyga and MSCHF on April 5 and 6, respectively, “But MSCHF defiantly pressed forward, continuing to aggressively market the Wavy Baby shoe.” Vans is asking that MSCHF be barred from advertising or selling the Wavy Baby sneakers or using any versions of its trademarks for future products. Vans also wants MSCHF to be ordered to deliver the sneakers for destruction and surrender any profits yielded from the sale of the shoes.

4月14日，知名运动品牌Vans起诉布鲁克林创意团体MSCHF携手Tyga打造的新款鞋Wavy Baby抄袭Vans的经典款运动鞋Old Skool系列，侵犯其商标权，该鞋于4月18日发售。在递交至纽约东区地区法院的诉状中，Van称MSCHF新推出的鞋 "试图混淆消费者，非法抽取Vans的市场份额，并故意侵害Vans宝贵的知识产权"。Vans的诉讼引起了人们对于两款鞋相似度的注意——而Wavy Baby的设计明显是以Vans的设计为基础的。并且在此前Tyga在Tiktok上发布的宣传视频中，一双Vans的Old Skool系列鞋被放入了微波炉，“叮”了一下就变成了“Wavy Baby”了。Vans在诉状中还提到，早在4月5日和6日的时候，公司就已经分别向Tyga和MSCHF发送了终止函，要求停止发售计划，“但MSCHF对我们的要求嗤之以鼻，坚持继续积极地推进发售计划、宣传Wavy Baby。”另外，Vans要求法院禁止MSCHF就Wavy Baby运动鞋进行销售或者宣传，以及禁止MSCHF在未来的任何产品中使用任何版本的Vans商标，Vans还希望法院判令MSCHF销毁这些运动鞋并放弃侵权销售的全部所得。

5

Memoji in iMessage is involved in patent infringement

iMessage的Memoji功能涉嫌专利侵权？苹果公司遭起诉

On April 13, Apple Inc. was sued by the Delaware based Corporation FacetoFace Biometric, Inc. for patent infringement relating to use of Memoji in iMessage. In the complaint submitted to the US district court eastern district of Missouri eastern division, FacetoFace accused Apple of having infringed its ‘623 Patent, entitled “Expression Recognition in Messaging Systems”, which FacetoFace submitted application and gained legal issuance on June 22, 2021, by making, using, selling and offering for sale the infringing devices in the United States, as Apple’s Memoji in iMessage functions the same. And FacetoFace also alleges that Apple has been and is inducing infringement of the patent by actively and knowingly inducing others to make, use, sell, offer for sale, or import the Infringing Devices. FacetoFace is seeking an injunction permanently enjoining Apple and its related parties, subjects from infringing the patent absent a license from FacetoFace as well as compensations adequate to its damages. Case is waiting to be heard.

4月13日，特拉华州的FacetoFace 生物识别公司起诉苹果公司，称苹果公司iMessage程序中的Memoji涉嫌侵犯其专利权。在向密苏里州东区地方法院递交的诉状中，FacetoFace指控苹果公司通过使用、制造、销售、许诺销售侵权设备的方式在美境内侵犯其名为“信息系统中的表情识别”的专利（623专利）。在2021年6月22日时，FacetoFace取得了该专利的正式联邦授权，而苹果公司iMessage程序中的Memoji功能与该专利的运作原理相同。FacetoFace还称苹果在明知侵权的情况下，已经且正在通过积极诱导他人制造、使用、销售、许诺销售或进口侵权设备的方式来诱导他人侵犯其专利权。FacetoFace请求法院颁发永久禁止令，禁止苹果公司及其相关主体在未经其授权的情况下以任何方式侵犯其专利权，同时，还请求法院判令苹果公司支付其与损失等额的赔偿金。该案正等待聆讯。

6

Employees of SK Innovation are charged for trade secret theft

SK新能源员工涉嫌窃取LG能源商业秘密

On April 7, police have referred about 30 employees of the battery maker SK Innovation Co. to the prosecution on charges of stealing electric vehicle technology secrets from rival firm LG Energy Solution Ltd.. As reported, they were among about 100 former LG employees, who moved to SK between 2017 and 2019 and sparked a trade secrets dispute between the two companies. LG claimed SK scouted its employees to gain trade secrets on EV batteries after coming late to the market. It is not the first time for subsidiaries of SK Group to be involved in trade secret theft cases, earlier in 2015, another subsidiary of SK Group SK Hynix was accused of stealing trade secret by Sandisk, a company manufactures memory devices.

4月7日，根据公告，警方已将电池制造商SK Innovation Co.的约30名员工移交给检方，指控他们从竞争对手LG能源有限公司窃取电动汽车技术机密。据悉，2017年至2019年期间，有约100名LG前员工到SK入职，而这30名员工就是这其中的一部分，他们在2017年至2019年期间转到SK，引发了两家公司之间的商业秘密纠纷。LG称SK在进入市场较晚的情况下，从其员工中“撬墙角”以取得电动车电池的商业秘密。这已经不是SK集团的子公司第一次卷入商业秘密盗窃案了，2015年，SK集团的另一个子公司SK海力士曾被指控窃取了存储设备制造商Sandisk的商业秘密。

7

Latest development in Universal Music’s termination rights litigation

终止权维权难？环球音乐终止权纠纷最新进展

On April 15, a group of artists suing Universal Music in the US in a dispute over the termination right in American copyright law filed new papers with the court, seeking class certification, so that they can represent any artists who are seeking to enforce that right against the major.The termination right says that artists who assign their copyrights to third parties can terminate that assignment and reclaim those rights – albeit only within the US – after 35 years. However, based on the argument that record deals are so called ‘work for hire’ agreements, when it comes to recordings, many labels argue that the termination right does not apply, for the label is the default owner of any copyrights, but not the artists. The filling of the case last week stated that there was no robust evidence to back up that any recording artists within the proposed classes had an employer-employee relationship with any of defendants’ record labels at any relevant time. Once the class certification granted, the plaintiffs will be positioned to achieve an historic rebuke of the labels’ misplaced reliance upon the work made for hire doctrine and will enable artists to regain ownership of their copyrights.

4月15日，针对美国著作权法中的终止权能否适用的问题，一群艺术家向法院递交了新的文件，寻求集体诉讼确认，以便他们代表任何想对大公司主张该权利的艺术家发起集体诉讼。美国著作权法中的终止权规定，于美国境内，将版权转让给第三方的艺术家可以终止该转让并在35年后收回转让权利。然而，涉及唱片业中的权利主张，许多唱片公司认为终止权并不适用，因为根据唱片合约的"雇佣工作"协议，唱片公司是版权的默认所有者，而不是艺术家。上周对该案的审理表明，没有有力的证据支持寻求集体诉讼确认中的任何录音艺术家在任何相关时间与任何的被告唱片公司存在雇主-雇员关系。若集体诉讼得到确认，则这将会是对于唱片公司过度依赖“雇佣关系”准则的谴责，具有历史性意义，同时也将使得艺术家得以重新获得其版权所有权。

8

“King of fairy tales” in China Zheng Yuan jie succeeded in “Pipilu” trademark right maintaining

“童话大王”郑渊洁成功维权皮皮鲁商标

On April 19, Beijing High People’s Court made a ruling in favor of Zheng Yuan jie, known as the “king of fairy tales in China”, that the trademark “Pipilu” (皮皮鲁), which is the name of a literary image in Zheng’s novel, is invalid. That is to say, Zheng’s most arduous trademark right maintainance, which took more than 13 years, finally gains success. In 2010, the trademark “Pipilu” was registered in Chengdu, Sichuan Province under the Class 45: eggs, tofu products, milk products and others, its applicant Zou, also applied for another trademark “Pipiyu” (皮皮鱼) with similar figure as the structure of Chinese characters of Pipilu which can confuse and mislead the customers.As reported, there are still 672 other infringing trademarks left there to be dealt with for Zheng, leading to the cease of his magazine King of the Fairy Tale.

4月19日，北京市高级人民法院作出“皮皮鲁”商标注册无效的判决，“童话大王”郑渊洁历经13年的维权之战终于告捷。“皮皮鲁”是郑渊洁笔下的一个著名小说人物，2010年，商标“皮皮鲁”在四川成都被他人注册，注册类别为45类鸡蛋，豆腐制品，牛奶制品及其他。注册人邹某，还另注册了一个“皮皮鱼”商标，这个皮皮鱼商标的外形与皮皮鲁汉字的结构十分相似，足以误导、混淆消费者。据报道，涉及侵犯郑渊洁知识产权的注册商标还有672个尚未处理，这也是导致其杂志《童话大王》停刊的主要原因。

9

Precedential case: U.S. Emerson wins $250,000 bad faith trademark suit in China

首例未使用即被认定商标恶意抢注案件：美国艾默生获赔25万美元

China’s Fujian High People’s Court on September 27, 2021 upheld a lower court ruling in favor of U.S. industrial conglomerate Emerson Electric Co. (艾默生电气公司) in a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by it against Chinese household water filter maker Xiamen Angel Portal Water System Co., Ltd. (厦门安吉尔水精灵饮水设备有限公司) and trademark agency Xiamen Xingjun Intellectual Property Law Affairs Co., Ltd. (厦门兴浚知识产权事务有限公司) representing it. The appellate court affirmed the award of 1.6 million yuan in damages and costs from Xiamen Angel and Xiamen Xingjun. It is the first case in China in which the defendant was found to have violated the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and constituted unfair competition, based only on the defendant's malicious batch of pre-existing trademarks with a certain degree of popularity, when the infringing trademark had not been put into substantive use.

2021年9月27日，福建省高级人民法院对于美国艾默生电气公司诉厦门安吉尔水精灵饮水设备有限公司及其商标代理人厦门兴浚知识产权事务有限公司商标侵权一案作出艾默生胜诉的判决。同时，法院判令安吉尔和兴浚支付艾默生160万元的赔偿及必要支出。该案是全国首例在商标抢注实施者未将抢注商标投入实质使用或基于抢注商标进行恶意投诉的情况下，仅基于被告恶意批量抢注原告在先具有一定知名度的商标，而认定被告的行为违反《反不正当竞争法》、构成不正当竞争的案例。

10

Procurement service can be infringement withoutlegality examination

网上代购未履行商品审查义务可涉及侵权

Hangzhou Yuhang District People’s Court has made a ruling of a trademark infringement case and held that the Defendant Chow, has infringed Zhejiang Reach Technology Co.’s trademark “MeO” by using it in his online store on taobao.com. The court also awarded 35,000 yuan damages to the plaintiff. The case is exemplary for it has made affirmation on whether the use of trademarks in procurement services is infringement involved and provides guidance to the application of law in similar cases. And it also reminds the procurement service providers of their liability for legality examination.

杭州余杭区人民法院判决了一起网络代购涉嫌商标侵权的案件，判决认定被告周某在其淘宝店代购服务进行过程中未经权利人浙江瑞琦科技有限公司的允许，擅自使用“MeO”商标，侵犯了其商标专用权，并判令被告周某支付原告35000元赔偿金。本案因对代购服务提供过程中是否涉及商标侵权作出了认定而具有典型意义，同时本案的判决也为同类案件的法律适用提供了指导。另，本案的判决也对代购服务提供者的商品合法性审查义务作出了提示。

Case Analysis

11

Procurement service can be infringement without legality examination

反不正当竞争典型案例：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

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。

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND 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W h o i s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“M O O D Y’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，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。

ANALYSIS

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：

jane.jiang@chinaipmagazine.com

18911449529（微信同号）