LOW COST HONG KONG LEGAL SERVICE

YIP, TSE & TANG, HONG KONG LAWYERS

  • HONG KONG LEGAL SERVICES
    Yip, Tse & Tang, Hong Kong Lawyers: Low-cost Speedy Hong Kong Legal Services
    Head of Matrimonial Department: Polly Hui: Divorce, Custody, Maintenance
    Senior Partner:Thomas Tse<: Wedding Civil Celebrant, Properties Sale and Purchase, Mortgages
    Managing Partner:Charles Tse: Employees' Compensation Claims, Personal Injuries
    Partner: Bankruptcy, Divorce, Deed Poll
    Partner: Bankruptcy, Divorce, Deed Poll

Traffic

  • Visits

« Types of Risks of E-Business | Main | Government immigration department streamlines smart ID card applications »

Television Broadcasts Ltd. V. Hemmul aka Huang Zhi Ming Claim Number: FA0111000102521

PARTIES: The Complainant is Television Broadcasts Ltd., Kowloon, Hong Kong (“Complainant”). The Respondent is Hemmul aka Huang Zhi Ming, Guangzhou City, Guang Dong Province, CHINA (“Respondent”).


REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME:
The domain name at issue is , registered with Dot.tv.

PANEL'S FINDINGS:

1. Complainant operates a commercial television station in Hong Kong.

2. Complainant has used the letters, TVB as its trademark since 1967.

3. Complainant registered trademark, TVB under the trademark laws of Burma/Union of Myanmar; Cambodia, France; Germany; Hong Kong; Japan; Malaysia; Panama; Peoples Republic of China; and South Africa. All of the trademark registrations were prior to Respondent's registration of .

4. Complainant states that it owns and operates a web site under the domain name, tvb.com since 1999. No evidence was presented to show this to be true. But since it is not disputed by Respondent, it is taken as admitted.

5. Respondent registered the domain name, on May 20, 2001.

6. Respondent is a resident of the Peoples Republic of China and was a resident on May 20, 2001.

7. Respondent was on constructive notice of Complainant's right in its trademark, TVB, on account of the trademark registration in the Peoples Republic of China.

8. Complainant has rights and interests in the trademark, TVB.

9. Respondent has no rights and interests in the domain name .

10. The trademark and disputed domain name are identical.

11. Respondent registered and is using the domain name, , in bad faith.

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

(1) the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant shows that it has used the trademark, TVB, since 1967. Complainant shows that it registered the trademark, TVB, in a number of countries including the Peoples Republic of China. The registrations all were undertaken prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name. Complainant clearly has rights in the trademark, TVB for the purposes of the requirements needed to proceed on this issue.

The trademark, TVB, is identical to the domain name, . Internet level indicators “such as ‘tv’ do not affect the similarity or identicality between the mark and a disputed domain name.” see Don Cornelius Productions, Inc. v. Fred Fluker d/b/a Futurevision, DTV2001-0026 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2001). see also Toronto Star Newspaper Ltd. v. Elad Cohen, DTV2000-0006 (Jan. 22, 2001), holding that the domain name “tstv.tv” and the trademark TSTV are identical. see also HSBC Holdings Plc v. Iain Rayner, DTV2001-0021 (WIPO Nov. 5, 2001); COMSAT Corporation v. TELE Satellite, DTV2001-0011 (WIPO June 7, 2001).

Complainant prevails on this issue.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant shows that it has used the trademark, tvb, since 1967 in its operation of the television station in Hong Kong. Complainant registered the trademark in a number of countries including the People's Republic of China. It can be inferred that Complainant has never licensed or authorized Respondent to use the trademark. It can be inferred that there is no relationship between the parties, business or otherwise, that would permit Respondent to use the trademark, tvb. Complainant contends that it has exclusive right to use the mark. see America Online, Inc. v. Tencent Communications Corp. FA93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000). Respondent makes no claim that he has ever been known as tvb or tvb.tv.

As a result of Complainant's showing, and Respondent's apparent lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name tvb.tv, the burden must shift to Respondent to demonstrate Respondent's rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. see Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000); MedStaff Alternatives, Inc. v. Dustina M. Bennett, FA97260 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 11, 2001).

Respondent may demonstrate his rights and legitimate interests in the domain name by any of the methods set out in Paragraph 4(c) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. Respondent makes no attempt to show rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. Respondent merely contends that Complainant had not registered its trademark in Tuvalu nor taken active steps to put the registrar, DOT TV, on actual notice of Complainant's trademark rights. Complainant is not required to perform either of these acts to maintain its trademark rights. Complainant registered its trademark in the People's Republic of China, the country in which Respondent is a resident.

Respondent, having undertaken to show none of the factual situations that would establish rights and legitimate interests in TVB or , it must be found that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Complainant prevails on this issue.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

It is Complainant's responsibility to show bad faith in order to prevail in a domain name dispute. See Paragraph 4, Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. Complainant's pleadings and submissions are so terse and incomplete that it makes it difficult to ascertain the true facts and circumstances of this case. Respondent's submissions are even more terse and incomplete. However, it is clear that any use of by Respondent on the Internet would create a situation where it would be “inconceivable that the respondent could make any active use of the disputed domain name without creating a false impression of association with the Complainant.” Sony Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000). See also Singapore Airlines Ltd v. P & P Servicios de Communicacion S.L., D2000-0643 (WIPO Aug. 29, 2000). That confusion is all the more evident when it is recognized that Complainant operates a television station. Any use on the Internet of in the areas of the People's Republic of China and Hong Kong, is bound to cause confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's web site or location or of a product or service on Respondent's web site or location. See Paragraph 4(c)(b)(iv), Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. The question remains whether Respondent will intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his web site or other on-line location. Respondent makes no attempt to show what he intends to do with the domain name. But upon notification by Complainant to Respondent of the possible trademark infringement between the trademark and the domain name, Respondent shut down the web site.

Respondent admits the following: “But this registration is not on purpose, and this is ratified by Television Broadcasts Limited in the communicate. We admit that we will transfer the domain name in dispute to Television Broadcasts Limited preferentially without damnify. And this attitude is ratified by Television Broadcasts Limited either…after realizing the attitude of the Television Broadcasts Limited, I have shut down the website…” Respondent states that he did not know of Complainant's trademark rights when the domain name was registered. The domain name was not registered “with malice” Respondent contends. There is no evidence to find “malice” in this case, and none is found. Malice has no part in domain name dispute proceedings.

The admission of Respondent that he will transfer the domain name in dispute to Complainant “preferentially without damnify” is taken to be an admission that the domain name infringes on the trademark of Complainant and that the use of the domain name will cause the situation proscribed by Paragraph 4(b)(iv). Under these circumstances, it is found that the elements of this section have been met. Complainant prevails on the bad faith issue.

DECISION: TRANSFER ORDERED

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE DOMAIN NAME, , NOW REGISTERED TO THE RESPONDENT, HEMMUL ALIAS OF HUANG ZHI MING, BE TRANSFERRED TO THE COMPLAINANT, TELEVISION BROADCASTS LTD.

Dated January 24, 2002

香港法律熱門網站推介

  • 香港律師辦理分居離婚
    分居紙‧分居書‧分居協議書‧分居証明‧分居証明信
  • 1083 改名契
    改名‧改姓要先辦改名契,即.即取.即用改名契‧收費:$500‧辦公時間可直接前往各律師行,毋須預約。
  • 灣仔網站
    灣仔網站:集商業‧政務‧國際盛事‧消遣‧娛樂‧專業服務於一身
  • IVA債務重組、低息還債
    個人債務重組(IVA)、香港破產、個人自願安排、拯救個人破產、DRP、破產接管、收數公司滋擾、投訴收數公司滋擾
  • 遺產承辦、遺囑、立平安書、財產計劃
    遺產承辦、財產保障、財務策劃、遺產分配、離岸信託基金、遺囑、遺囑認證
  • 醫療疏忽索、診斷失誤償
    醫療疏忽索償網:醫管局、醫生、醫院失誤、病人權益、醫療失誤、專業疏忽賠償、診斷失誤
  • 香港電子法律書介
    電子交易、網址糾紛、電腦犯罪和保安、網上理財、個人資料私隱、電子証據、網上誹謗、互聯網下的版權和司法管轄權
  • 刑事辯護、求情和保釋法律服務
    刑事辯護、求情和保釋:打擔保(差館或法庭)、打甩口供紙、盤問証人、決定應否在庭作証、結案陳詞、案例考究、打甩控罪、獲得輕判
  • 按揭、物業轉按、物業加按、贖樓
    樓宇法律服務:樓宇買賣手續、物業按揭、按揭律師、聯名購買、物業轉按、物業加按、贖樓、居屋買賣、授權、政府收回土地、預售樓花
  • 離婚、撫養權、贍養費、財產分配
    離婚、撫養權、贍養費、財產分配、監護、分居
  • 8989 網上法律大全
    樓宇買賣、按揭、離婚、撫養權、贍養費、遺產承繼、遺囑工傷、職業病、交通傷亡、醫療失誤或疏忽、刑事辯護、保釋、求情、債務重組、IVA、DRP.破產、物業管理、知識產權
  • 法周刊
    刑事辯護、保釋、求情、債務重組、IVA、破產、離婚、撫養權、贍養費、遺產承繼、遺囑、知識產權、樓宇買賣、按揭、因工受傷、職業病、交通傷亡、醫療失誤或疏忽
  • 工傷索償、交通意外傷亡
    工傷索償、交通意外傷亡、人身傷亡、人身受傷:只代表傷者、不代表保險公司
  • 葉謝鄧律師行
    法律服務:債務重組(IVA.DRP)、個人破產申請、因工傷亡索償、車禍意外疏忽索償、醫療疏忽、遺囑、網上刑事罪行、遺產承辦、刑事辯護、刑事求情、保釋、按揭、轉按、贖契
  • 電子交易、網址糾紛、電腦犯罪
    電子交易、網址糾紛、電腦犯罪、保安、網上理財、個人資料私隱、電子証據、網上誹謗、互聯網版權、司法管轄權
  • 破產網
    香港破產、債務重組(IVA)、債務一筆清、個人自願安排、破產條例、分期還款

《香港電子法律》書介