How much do you know about domain name arbitration?Those cases of malicious removal

Malicious domain squatting cases in the domain name industry are not uncommon, some of which are unintentional, while others are intentional. It depends on the specific circumstances. Here, we summarize four domain arbitration cases that caused a sensation in the industry several years ago. Although years have passed, their impact still lingers. As domain investors, there are lessons to be learned from these cases.

1. "The Real vs. Fake Kaixin Case" that Made Headlines Four Years Ago

Incident: In May 2009, kaixin001.com, operated by Beijing Kaixinren Information Technology Co., Ltd., filed a lawsuit against kaixin.com, operated by a subsidiary of Oak Pacific Interactive Corporation (Qianxiang Group), claiming unfair competition for impersonating the name of Kaixin.com. In addition to demanding an apology and the cessation of infringement, they also sought compensation of 10 million RMB. It's worth noting that the plaintiff Kaixin.com was created by Cheng Binghao, a former Sina executive, in March 2008, while the defendant Kaixin.com was created in October 2008.

In October 2010, dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment that ordered Qianxiang Group to compensate Kaixin.com 400,000 RMB for economic losses and cease using the "kaixin.com" domain name or any similar name, Kaixin.com decided to appeal again, with the core demand being a judgment for Qianxiang Group to stop using the "kaixin.com" domain name and to compensate Kaixin.com for 10 million RMB in economic losses. Kaixin.com argued that due to the existence of two Kaixin.com websites, users were confused, and therefore, if there were no "fake Kaixin.com," all Kaixin.com users should belong to the "real Kaixin.com."

Result: The court upheld the original verdict of the first instance. The reason being that despite the issue of the order of Chinese names, the Internet domain name kaixin.com was registered first, so its use should not be stopped. Additionally, Kaixin.com presented media reports that mentioned "Qianxiang Kaixin.com," indicating that there were actual users on the internet who could distinguish between the two "Kaixin.com" websites.

2. Google Gains Ownership of 8 Disputed Domain Names through Arbitration

Incident: On November 11, 2011, Google concluded eight disputed domain name cases through the American Arbitration Forum. The eight disputed domain names were googlegulf.com, googlebahrain.com, googlecongo.com, googlelibya.com, googlesaudiarabia.com, googleafghanistan.com, googleyemen.com, and googlehariri.com.

Google complained that these eight disputed domain names contained the "google" trademark and were registered after the trademark application. The defendants intended to generate traffic revenue through user clicks on the disputed domain names. Their malicious intent was evident, and their actions infringed on Google's rights. As a result, Google requested the return of ownership rights to these disputed domain names.

Result: Google won the case. After an investigation and evidence collection by the arbitration panel, all eight disputed domain names were transferred to Google.

3. The Real vs. Fake Walmart Case

Incident: Recently, Walmart filed a UDRP (Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy) complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to arbitrate the disputed domain names ReallyWalmart.com/.net/.info/.org. All four of these domain names redirected to the ReallyWalmart.org website. Walmart argued that these domain names were not only highly similar to Walmart's official website domain name, TheRealWalmart.com but also mimicked Walmart's website, potentially misleading consumers and harming Walmart's reputation.

It is worth noting that these four disputed domain names were registered in June of the same year by the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union in the United States. They intended to use the domains to establish a website criticizing Walmart's labor practices. The dispute between the two parties has a long history, including large-scale strike demonstrations organized by the union. This is not Walmart's first domain name dispute with them; previously, Walmart had won a dispute over the domain name OURWalmart.com but lost a case involving Walmartat50.com.

Result: The outcome is still uncertain.

4. Broadband Mountain Community Gets Counterfeited

Incident: In 2009, the domain name industry was rife with counterfeits. At the time, PCHOME's kdslife.com Broadband Mountain and www.kuandaishan.com Broadband Mountain both appeared in people's view, leaving users somewhat confused. The latter successfully self-promoted by using a similar domain name, leading to a rapid increase in website traffic.

Broadband Mountain was originally a section of the PChome forum for discussing broadband technology and the source of its name. However, with years of development, Broadband Mountain has transformed into a comprehensive forum that covers various topics. It has over 8.05 million registered users, a daily visit rate of 23.5 million, and over 1.3 million daily independent IP addresses, becoming the largest urban life and consumption portal website in East China.

Result: While admiring the "brilliant" move of the site owner, the legitimate Broadband Mountain seemed to have to accept this "silent loss." "We have already reported it to the relevant authorities, and it may be resolved through legal means in the future," said the head of PChome at the time. Due to the incomplete legal system and weak awareness of online branding, this was their response.

Mixing up Li Gui with Li Kui, and Li Kui becoming Li Gui.

In the domain name industry, there are numerous opportunists who engage in practices like counterfeiting Broadband Mountain to gain fame and profit. Cases like the real vs. fake Kaixin.com are countless. While counterfeiting and domain name disputes were prevalent in the past, even today, with gradually improving legal regulations, the competition between trademarks and domain names remains fierce. Domain arbitration cases are frequent, and for webmasters caught in such predicaments, the question remains: How can they win these legal battles and protect their legitimate rights?