Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/36396
Type of publication: Magistro darbas / Master thesis
Field of Science: Teisė / Law
Author(s): Petrikienė, Marija
Title: Ar domeno registracijos panaikinimo ar neatlygintino perleidimo metu nepažeidžiama domeno turėtojo teisės į registruotą domeną?
Other Title: Does the termination of a domain registration and unpaid transfer of the said domain to another entity violate the rights of the original domain registrant?
Extent: 52 p.
Date: 6-Jun-2018
Event: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. Teisės fakultetas
Keywords: Domeno vardas;Domeno vardo turėtojas;Domeno vardo teisinis statusas;Domain name;Domain holder;Domain name legal status
Abstract: Domeno vardas šiais laikais atlieka ne tik savo techninę funkciją, tačiau yra nustatyta, kad jis turi ir prekės ženklo savybių. Todėl remiantis teisės aktais ir teismų praktika, domeno vardo sąvoka galima apibrėžti, kad, tai yra internetinio puslapio adresas, kuris reklamuoja teikiamas paslaugas ar prekes, jeigu jo nėra, negalimas elektroninio pašto ar puslapio talpinimas (hostingas) internete, lengviau yra surandama svetainė internete. Šiame darbe buvo analizuojama Lietuvos ir Tarptautiniai teisės aktai, siekiant išsiaiškinti, kokias teises įgyja domeno vardo turėtojas, taip pat buvo analizuojama teismų praktika, siekiant išsiaiškinti, kokiais atvejais domeno vardo turėtojas pažeidžia trečiųjų šalių teises ir kaip galėtų domeno vardo turėtojas apginti savo teises į domeno vardą. Todėl šio tyrimo tikslas buvo išsiaiškinti ar domeno registracijos panaikinimo ar neatlygintino perleidimo metu nėra pažeidžiamos domeno turėtojo teisės į registruotą domeną. Išanalizavus mokslininkų straipsnius, teisės aktus ir teismų praktiką buvo padarytos išvados, kad sudarius paslaugų sutartį tarp domeno vardo užsakovo ir administratoriaus, domeno vardo turėtojas įgyja sutartines išskirtines teises į domeno vardą tam tikrą laikotarpį. Tai reiškia, kad domeno vardo turėtojas įgyja teisę naudotis, valdyti ir disponuoti domeno vardu, kol sutartis tarp domeno vardo turėtojo ir administratoriaus galioja arba iki tol, kol ji bus nutraukta. Išanalizavus teisės aktus, buvo padaryta išvada, kad nėra garantuoja domeno vardo turėtojui apsaugos teisė į domeno vardą. Šiuose teisės aktuose aiškiai yra nurodyta, kad administratoriai neprisiima jokios atsakomybės, kuomet iškyla ginčas. Visa atsakomybė yra perkelta domeno vardo užsakovui, kuris turi pareigą užtikrinti, kad jo registruojamas domeno vardas nepažeidžia trečiųjų šalių teisėtų interesų. Domeno vardo turėtojas gali apginti savo teises į domeno vardą, jeigu jis registruojant turėjo teisėtą interesą, tai darė sąžiningai, nesiekė naudos, nesiekė pasinaudoti konkurento reputacija, neklaidino vartotojų arba domeno vardo turėtojo domeno vardas yra plačiai žinomas.
Domain names are usually similar or identical to trademarks or the names legal entities. Everything is fine and there is no dispute when the holder of the domain and the trademark is the same entity. A dispute usually arises when the holder of the domain and the holder of the trademark are different entities. A domain name nowadays not only performs its direct technical function, but it is also determined that it has brand features as well. Therefore, according to the law and the case-law, a domain name can be defined as an address for a website which advertises a service or a product, also used for sending and receiving emails and ranking in different search engines. This study analyzed the procedural regulations of a ".lt" domain names, the UDRP rules and Commission Regulation (EB) No. 874/2004, which sets the rules for the implementation and functions functions for the ".eu" Top Level Domain Names and the principles applicable to their registration. These laws were analyzed in order to find out what rights the domain name holder gained, as well as focusing on case law in order to clarify the key criteria in which cases the domain name holder violates the rights of third parties and how the domain name holder could protect his domain rights when the domain name is similar or identical to a trademark or a name of a legal entity. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to ascertain whether the domain name holder's right to a registered domain is not affected by the cancellation of the registration or the unpaid transfer of the said domain. In order to achieve the goal, the following tasks were raised: first, the aim was to find out the concept of a domain name; secondly, to analyze the legal nature of the domain name; third, to analyze the rights acquired by the domain name holder in accordance with Lithuanian legal acts and international legal acts and the fourth was to analyze the legal relationship between the domain name and the trademark, as well as between the domain name and the name of a legal entity. After analyzing the scientific articles, Lithuanian and European legislation, UDRP rules and case law, the following conclusions were made. The legal status of a domain name is not clear, some researchers say that the right to a domain name derives from the obligatory legal relationship, others claim that from the intellectual property rights, but from the analysis of the submitted articles it can be stated that the rights to a domain name have both legal obligations criteria and criteria for intellectual property rights. Obligatory legal relations arise from a contract made between the registrar and the registrant of a domain name, under which both the registrar and the registrant acquire rights and obligations to each other. After the initial contract between the registrar and the registrant, the registrant obtains exclusive contractual domain name rights for a specified period of time. This means that the domain name holder has the right to have, use and manage the domain name until the agreement between the domain name holder and the administrator is valid or until it 5 is terminated. However, an important aspect is that the domain name has an economic value, this property is inherent in the subject of intellectual property. The economic value is determined by the extent to which the other party is willing to pay for the domain name. After analyzing Lithuanian, European legislation and UDRP rules, a conclusion was made that these legal acts and rules do not guarantee the protection of a domain name holders rights to the domain name. The legislation clearly states that the registrar will not be liable for any third-party disputes arising from the use of a domain name which is similar or identical to a trademark or a legal entities name. All responsibility is transferred to the registrant, who has a duty to ensure that his registered domain name does not violate the rights or interests of any third parties. Also, after analyzing the legal acts and the case law, it was established that the domain name holder can defend his / her rights to the domain name if he / she had a legitimate interest in registering the domain name, did it honestly, without any personal gain, without compromising the competitor, without the intent of using the reputation of the competitor for personal gain, or misleading the consumer. The domain registrant can also protect his / her right to the domain name when his / her domain name is widely known. The PINO has argued that the domain name should be widely known and that its accidental knowledge does not provide protection for the domain name holder. The fact that the domain name is widely known can be proven by submitting articles, invoices, sent letters, copies of the website, etc. to the court. There is also an obligation for trademark owners and owners of names of legal entities to create distinctive signs, names or legal signs in order to facilitate their protection and to ensure that their protection limits are higher. Because, according to the case-law, when assessing whether a domain name violates the interests of third parties, the courts take into account the weak and strong elements of the sign, the stronger and more exclusive the sign is, the easier for the third party to prove that his /her rights were violated, because if a trademark, the name of a legal entity is weak, limits of its protection are lower. It is also common practice that if the trademark, legal entities name or a sign is weak or more of a descriptive nature, then the owners of the trademark or the legal entities name do not acquire the right to abuse those marks, they must be accessible to any other person.
Internet: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/36396
Appears in Collections:2018 m. (TF mag.)

Files in This Item:
marija_petrikiene_md.pdf975.63 kBAdobe PDF   Restricted AccessView/Open   Request a copy

Show full item record

Page view(s)

60
checked on Oct 13, 2019

Download(s)

2
checked on Oct 13, 2019

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.