The merchant to rush the top domain name misled the customer is awarded 20,000 Yuan

The "Case replay" top-level domain name is the same as the plaintiff's registered trademark and is advertised on the website for similar products. Plaintiff (appellant): Mo X Co., Ltd. defendant (Appellant): Shenzhen X Connector Co., Ltd. the plaintiff's "M" trademark was registered in the 9th class in 1989 and its designated goods as connectors , switches, sockets, interchangeable socket equipment and products, the current registered trademarks of the existence of valid.　　The plaintiff registered the "m.com" domain name in 1994.　　The defendant X Connector Company commissioned in March 2003 to register the domain name "m.cn", the defendant since the registration of the domain name has been using the Web page to publicize its company and its products. The top domain name of the domain name registered by the defendant is identical to the spelling of the plaintiff's registered trademark.　　The original defendant confirmed that the English alphabet combination of "M" had no practical meaning in English and belonged to any combination. According to the Notarial certificate, enter the "Shenzhen X Connector Co., Ltd." home page, the home page shows that the company's Web site includes www.s.com and www.M.cn, and on the home page to promote the content: "Product specifications are mainly imitation J connectors, M connectors (Mo x) ...". The defendant on his company homepage propaganda "May for the customer the following company's electronic connector model conversion to our product to replace!" Product specifications are mainly ...　　M (Mo x) ", and the defendant should compare the product marking of the plaintiff with the mark of the defendant's product. In response to the defendant's actions, the plaintiff reported to the Shenzhen Trade and Industry Bureau Trade and Industry Bureau confirmed that the relevant administrative penalty decision, proved that the defendant does not have the ability to produce connectors, and found that the defendant on its web site on its various models of connectors and the United States, such as the connectors of the company's connector products made a corresponding comparison of publicity. The conclusion of the administrative punishment decision is as follows: "The above propaganda, misleading for the Client Connector product quality equivalent to the United States Mo X Company's connector products." The above-mentioned acts of the parties belong to the use of Internet media for the quality of their goods misleading false propaganda behavior.　　"The penalty decision has been fined by the defendant and the decision has entered into force," the statement said.　　Another found that the defendant's business scope includes connectors, connectors, wiring, wiring harness, terminals, electronic components sales. The plaintiff sued to the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court, requesting: L, decree the defendant to cease immediately the infringement and unfair competition to the plaintiff's "M" trademark exclusive right, and transfer its "m.cn" domain name registered in China Internet Information Center to the plaintiff; 2.　　The defendant was awarded a loss of 300,000 yuan to the plaintiff for his malicious registration of the domain name as the domain name of the plaintiff's registered trademark; 3. The defendant is liable to pay a reasonable investigation fee and a lawyer's fee of 50,000 yuan for the plaintiff due to his tort. "Referee's reason" The defendant's behavior has malicious constitution unfair competition the court considers that the defendant in this case sells the same products as the plaintiff, that is, the terminals and plastic shells used by connectors and connectors. Evidence submitted from plaintiffIt has been proved that the defendant registered, used the same domain name as the plaintiff's registered trademark, and advertised the same category of products with the plaintiff on the website under the domain name, and declared on the website which can link the domain name that it could provide a substitute product including the plaintiff's product.　　The court found that the defendant, for the purpose of publicizing its products, registered and used the same domain name as the plaintiff's registered trademark for commercial purposes, intentionally causing confusion with the products and websites provided by the plaintiff, misleading the Internet user to visit his website, and the defendant's behavior was malicious. According to the provisions of article 52nd (v) of the trademark law of the People's Republic of China, it is an infringement of the exclusive right of a registered trademark to cause other damage to the exclusive right of a registered trademark of another person. The accused is using the controlled domain name and through the link of the domain name to publicize its products very easy to confuse the common consumers of the defendant product and the plaintiff's product source or mistaken for other relevance, damage the plaintiff's legitimate rights and interests, constitute infringement.　　The court found that the defendant's conduct violated the plaintiff's exclusive right to a registered trademark. The defendant's scope of operation is the same category of products as the products produced and sold by the plaintiff, both of which are sold in our territory and belong to the same business scope. The defendant is unable to justify his registration of the real name of the network, and its use of the domain name to promote its products, misled by the domain name to visit the plaintiff company's Web site to enter the defendant company's Web page, and through the domain name link to the defendant company, publicity it can provide customers with imitation, including the plaintiff's products, such as substitutes for their own improper interests,　　The defendant's behavior violates the principle of honesty and credit, and its behavior also constitutes unfair competition. According to the second article of "China Internet Information Center domain name Dispute Resolution", the defendant considers that the domain name dispute Resolution agency shall not accept the dispute domain name registration period of two years. Therefore, the case should not continue to be heard. The court found that the "China Internet Information Center domain name Dispute Resolution", said inadmissible, limited to its management of the dispute resolution agencies do not accept domain name dispute, but the method does not have the right to limit the jurisdiction of the dispute over domain name disputes to make a ruling.　　The defendant's defence court therefore rejected the letter. "Referee results" stop using domain name compensation 20,000 Yuan Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court verdict as follows: First, the defendant Shenzhen X Connector Co., Ltd. immediately stop the plaintiff Mo X Limited "M" trademark infringement and unfair competition, immediately stop using the "m.cn" domain name. The defendant Shenzhen x Connector Limited shall unregister its registered domain name www.M.cn within 10th from the effective date of this judgment. Third, the defendant Shenzhen X Connector Co., Ltd. within 10th of the date of entry into force to compensate plaintiff Mo X Limited for infringement suffered by the economic loss of 20,000 yuan.　　Dismiss the plaintiff's other claim. After the verdict of first instance, the defendant appealed to the higher people's Court of Guangdong province.　　After hearing the court of second instance, the judgment dismissed the appeal and upheld the original decision. "Judge Profile" Shing Shing, graduated from Shenzhen University Law School in 2002, obtained a master's degree in private international law, and obtained the University of Hong Kong in 2006Master's degree in law, present as Judge of intellectual property Court of Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court. "RELATED LINKS" "The PRC trademark law" 14th to identify well-known trademarks should take into account the following factors: (a) the extent to which the relevant public is aware of the trademark and (b) the duration of the use of the trademark, (iii) the duration, extent and geographical scope of any promotional work of the trademark; (iv) The trademark is protected as a well-known trademark　　, and (v) other factors that are well-known for the trademark. Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on several issues concerning the application of law in the trial of civil disputes involving computer network domain name fifth the defendant's behavior has been proved to be one of the following circumstances, the peoples court shall determine that it is malicious; (b) Register for commercial purposes, use the same or similar domain name as the plaintiff Intentionally confusing a product, service or plaintiff's website with a plaintiff, misleading a network user to visit its website or other online site.