網域名稱爭議處理—以統一網域名稱爭議解決政策(UDRP)為中心

Domain Name Dispute Resolution—Focused on Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

王奕華(Yi-Hua Wang)

指導教授 ： 謝銘洋

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2012年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2012.02584

摘要

UDRP作為替代性紛爭解決機制，以簡速的方式打擊網路蟑螂。運作迄今已逾十年，成效斐然。長期累積的案例，已逐漸發展既定的原則，如WIPO Overview 2.0，頗值得以UDRP為藍本的我國爭議程序處理辦法參考。
本文首先在第二章介紹網域名稱基礎概念。網域名稱係私法上的權利，屬於債權性質。並介紹網路蟑螂、網路寄生蟲、網路海盜等搶註他人商標或標誌之類型，了解國際上處理此類糾紛之管道—UDRP。透過數據分析、和仲裁比較，進一步認識UDRP的特色。最後介紹程序方面的要件，並指出台灣案例提及辯論主義為其特色。
第三章研究UDRP實質要件(一)：申訴基礎和混淆誤認之虞。UDRP早期限制商標和服務標章，然而晚近漸漸走向以表徵為基礎。視其實質上是否有區辨商品或服務之功能，而不僅限於狹義的商標。因此，個人姓名是否可提出申訴，UDRP和我國處理辦法看似有相當大的落差，但實際上已形成共識。另外，混淆誤認之虞既可於後續要件檢討，僅比較網域名稱和標誌的相似性已為足。
UDRP實質要件(二)：註冊人無權利或正當利益，我國案例類型較少。諸如：經銷轉售、仿擬批評網站、粉絲愛好網站、汙損和正當評論之間的分際，UDRP見解可供未來參考。部份問題涉及初始興趣混淆是否適用於網域名稱爭議，本文則持否定見解。整體而言，從具體到抽象可分為個人具體權利，如姓名權、商標權；個人抽象利益，如言論自由、一般行為自由；最後是抽象的公益。並以商業和公益兩要素綜合判斷，視網站內容或使用情況，是否為資源最有效率的利用。
　　關於UDRP實質要件(三)：惡意註冊使用，不應侷限於例示情形，檢驗一切事實和情況而定。比較UDRP和我國處理辦法可發現若干不同。我國要件解釋較為彈性，註冊或使用其一有惡意即構成，可輕易涵括被動持有類型。但相形之下，也較難形成共識。單純註冊是否屬妨礙、超額利益認定、慣行模式的解釋，案例上有不同見解。
最後，點出網域名稱的新興議題。搜尋引擎未使得網域爭議消失，究其原因可能是兩者的目標族群不同、使用成本不同，且網域名稱會影響搜尋結果，甚可避免若干搜尋引擎缺陷。其次，新通用頂級域名雖有反對聲浪質疑，但已於2011年6月通過。並搭配相關權利保護機制，如異議程序、商標清單、統一快速暫停系統、授權後爭議解決機制等，保障權利人。再者是社群網站的後域名侵權問題，雖有內部解決機制但效率不彰，又囿於網域名稱的定義而無法歸由UDRP處理，應有檢討之必要。

關鍵字

網域名稱爭議 ； 網路蟑螂 ； UDRP ； 替代性爭議處理 ； 新通用頂級域名

並列摘要

As an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, UDRP is a fast and simple way to combat cyber-squatters. It has been carried out for over ten years, achieving remarkable success. The cases being long-term cumulated have established principles, such as WIPO Overview 2.0. WIPO Overview 2.0 is quite a good model, deserving our domain name dispute resolution process notice.
At first, the thesis introduces basic conception of domain name in the second chapter. Domain name is a private right, and not rights in rem. The following is different types of cybersquatting, such as cyber-squatters ,cyber-parasites and cyber-pirates. We should get to know UDRP, the way dealing with cyber-squatters internationally. Though data analysis and comparing to arbitration, we may understand characteristics of the UDRP. Then this thesis introduces the procedure elements, pointing out that Taiwan's case referred to the principle of party-presentation of its characteristics.
The third chapter focuses on the UDRP’s first substantial element: the basement of complaint and the likelihood of confusion. In early stage, UDRP limited the scope to trademark and service mark. However, it gradually towards to trade dress. Considering whether it has the ability to distinguish product and service, UDRP no longer limited to narrow definition of trademarks. Therefore, personal name is capable of filing complaint. It seems a dramatic gap between UDRP and our policy, but in fact formed consensus. In addition, since the likelihood of confusion can be reviewed by the following elements, it is sufficient to compare the similarity between domain name and trade dress.
In our country, only few case types discuss UDRP’s second substantial element: no rights or legitimate interest. For example, Distribution or resale, parody or criticism, fans site, the distinction between tarnishment and comments. The UDRP insights serve as future reference. Some issues involved in the initial interest confusion. Whether it is suitable for domain name dispute resolution, the author held a negative view. Overall, from concrete to abstract, can be divided into individual specific rights, such as name rights, trademark rights; abstract personal interests, such as freedom of speech, freedom of general behavior; abstract public good. A comprehensive judgment is made , combining two elements: commercial and public good. Depends on the content of site or the use condition, one may figure out who is more competent to use domain name efficiently.
The third UDRP substantial element : registered /use in bad faith, it should not be limited to the illustrative case. In stead , testing all the facts and circumstances. When comparing UDRP and our policy ,a number of difference can be found. Our policy is more flexible, bad faith registered or bad faith use constitutes. It is easy to include passive holding.In contrast, it is more difficult to form a consensus. To illustrate, simple registration form obstructed, the definition of out-of-the-pocked, the interpretation of a pattern of conduct, are all controversial cases in our country.
Finally, the thesis points out the newly emerging issues of the domain name. First, the search engine does not make the domain name dispute disappear. The reason may be : difference between the target, the cost, and the domain name will affect the search results, even to avoid a number of search engine defects. Second, although some opposition questioned the new gTLDs, it was passed in June 2011. With several related rights protection mechanisms, such as the objection procedure, the trademarks clearing house, Uniform Rapid Suspension system, and post-delegation dispute resolution mechanisms to protect rights holders. Furthermore, the problem of post-domain name infringement arises in social network sites. Although there is the internal settlement mechanism, but it is inefficient. Unfortunately, due to the definition of the domain name, UDRP cannot settle the issue, which should be reviewed.

並列關鍵字

Domain name dispute ； cybersquatter ； UDRP ； ADR ； New gTLDs

參考文獻

17.趙中皓，網域名稱爭議解決之研究，私立中原大學財經法律系碩士論文，93年6月。

25.蔡瑞森，商標善意先使用並非權利不得授權，理律雙月刊97年11月號。

8.TWNIC網域名稱爭議處理辦法宣導手冊。

16.陳人傑，世界智慧財產權組織執行ICANN/UDRP決定之趨勢分析，科技法律透析第18卷第5期，95年5月。

22.劉靜怡，從ICANN(The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers )的成形與發展看網際網路公共資源分配機制的政策與法律問題：1998 至2001年的國際趨勢觀察和省思，台大法學論叢第30卷第6 期，90年11月。