after half a month, EPSON v. domain name dispute case is still a matter of interest to the industry.
      May 18, 2007, traffic2007 (domain name Summit), a domain name service website practitioners told "IT": "Beijing Time Beijing thought this is a good business, did not expect EPSON this attitude so resolute, Ning court is not willing to buy the domain name."

      April 30, 2007, EPSON v. new domain name dispute case: the final two domain name "" and "" transfer to the complainant Seiko EPSON Corporation (Seiko Epson Corporation) – "EPSON" trademark holder.

      reporter from the domain name registration authority Chinese Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) survey, Beijing new network respectively on 01 December 21, 2006 21 and 22 07 25 registered "" and "" domain name two. These two easily misunderstood domain name so that EPSON really headache. To be aware of one’s own domain name was registered, in Japan’s Nagano Seiko EPSON corporation could not bear Chinese netizens dug into the wall burrows in the "EPSON" territory, determined not huaqianxiaozai, would rather take the legal procedures cumbersome, but also there is a saying. The final result proved that their decision was correct.

      Beijing to abandon the respondent

      Chinese reporters from the International Trade Promotion Committee learned that EPSON English trademark "EPSON [email protected]" through Chinese International Trade Promotion Committee of patent and Trademark Office in July 2002 to apply for registration, February 2004 passed, registration number: 3239322. In April of the same year, the Chinese Trademark "EPSON" also passed the registration.

      January 18, 2007, to provide registration information in the email address, EPSON Chinese authorized Beijing firm Lin Daliu sent an email to the Beijing new network, other infringing EPSON trademark, registered the domain name without a contact, but Beijing new network has been no reply.

      February 13th, Beijing Linda Liu lawyer formally filed a complaint to the domain name dispute resolution center. According to the case of the expert arbitrator Jin Ling lawyer, the reporter details the contents of the complaint.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *