INTERNET PLATFORMS
Systems for domain names have developed differently in national applications but the results have always been the same. For example, Turkey has determined a hybrid system in domain name registration, where ‘
.gen.tr’ domain names are acquired by the domain name holders on a first-come, first-served basis. In order to acquire a ‘
.com.tr’ domain name, your trademark application, trade name, or name/ surname should match the intended domain name. In practice, an application for a trademark is sufficient (instead of a full trademark registration), in accordance with the principle of non-aggravating procedures. But domain names have now begun to be acquired simply by filing a trademark application, as upon the rejection of a trademark a new application may be re-filed in order to maintain the domain name right.
Unfortunately, it has been very difficult to resist this activity, because a dispute resolution mechanism has still not been introduced, even though it was specified in the original policies 10 years ago. Instead, it is necessary to file a lawsuit to claim a right. Tis process is time-consuming, since the court needs to know the fate of the trademark application to decide on the case.
Domain names that are acquired without submission of documents also become attractive because of the inadequacy of dispute resolution. Additionally, the attitude of the ‘
.nic.tr’ management in concrete cases has allowed an increase in these actions. For example, a complaint filed against a ‘
.gen.tr’ domain name has been rejected based on the ground that the domain name has been assigned in the correct way (on a first-come, first- served basis) despite the favourable UDRP decision from the same owner and for the same name with the ‘.com’ extension. Likewise, another complaint has been rejected by stating that the domain name will be registered on a first-come, first-served basis when there are owners of two identical trademarks engaged in commercial activity in different sectors.
However, when one of the indications is a trade name and the other is a trademark, there have been situations in which the objection has been accepted and the domain name transferred,
“EACH PLATFORM HAS ITS OWN POLICIES AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISMS TO DEAL WITH MALICIOUS ACTS. THESE TEND TO SEEK TO BALANCE THE PROTECTION OF PERSONAL/ COMMERCIAL RIGHTS WITH FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION.”
on the grounds that the application date of the trademark is earlier than that of the trade name. Nevertheless, transfer of a domain name registered for a trade name is not permitted to be to a trademark owner in accordance with a mutual agreement. It is compulsory for a domain name registered on basis of a trade name to continue its existence with the trade name right.
On the other hand, when the complaint is related to the banking sector, a domain name registered with the ‘
.gen.tr’ extension is treated as a public security matter and transferred upon complaint. Tese uncertainties and inconsistencies in the policies have unfortunately created favourable grounds for infringement of rights and have significantly damaged the reputation of domain names with ‘.tr’ extensions.
While these problems continue in relation to domain names, trademark infringements on social media sites, whose popularity is on the rise, have increased immensely. And for some reason, people oſten believe that it is easy to get away with infringement in this context. Tese platforms have taken measures against such infringement actions by indicating them in their terms and policies. Although all of them differ, almost all of them protect IP rights. However, infringements evolve in a way that accords with these rules. Tere are a few concrete cases to refer to.
Twitter
Within the framework of Twitter policies, all users should respect third party IP rights. It is communicated to all users in advance that accounts will be deactivated for transgression of the policies. However there are techniques that are used to bypass the rules. Attempts to infringe, as we have experienced, include registering the name but not entering any content, putting in a different photograph or entering irrelevant content. Twitter has so far closed all of these accounts without any hesitation. In one case, a user attempted to get around it by adding the following note below the account: ‘unofficial account— made by the brand’s fans’. At this point, the complaint was rejected on the grounds that there will not be any likelihood of third party confusion.
This interpretation has also directed the actions of people acting ‘not in good faith’. The above- mentioned notes are added for the registered accounts and the body of rules is started to be bypassed. The friends of people who re-tweet the tweets of a person using @brand do not see this detailed explanation. Consequently, users suppose that the account is genuine and are mistaken about the actual publisher of the tweets. This may be challenging for reputable/ well-known trademark owners. Additionally, the fact that Twitter does not interfere with the tweets sent and the examples of national law being insufficient in collecting evidence have increased the number of libels made via Twitter in the last two years.
Facebook
Facebook contains a similar body of policies for complaints. Facebook closes account names and community pages if they lead to a likelihood of confusion in accordance with these policies. However if it is a Facebook ‘group’, it does not interfere with the content on the grounds that it is a platform created for people to share ideas. But most of the users do not recognise the difference between a Community page and a Facebook group. Terefore, this policy of
40 World Intellectual Property Review May/June 2012
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84