超级军网日本尼桑汽车公司的网址被抢注
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/05/01 02:23:50
]]
这个官司从1999年打到现在，现在已经进入美国高院审判。
DECEMBER - 1999, Initial Filing.
More then five years after I registered nissan.com, legal action was instituted by Nissan Motor seeking $10,000,000 in damages, and to restrain me from the use of MY family name for business purposes on the Internet.
APRIL - 2002, First Round of Summary Judgments.
The court ruled on a summary judgment motions as follows:
1. "Cyber-Squatting" claim, in Nissan Computer's favor.
2. "Infringement on non-auto-related" claim, in Nissan Computer's favor.
3. "Infringement on auto-related" claim, in Nissan Motor's favor.
4. "Dilution" claim was sent to trial.
Nissan Motor's intention to make this case as expensive as possible for me was evident from the beginning. Undoubtedly, the notion that me and my company might be forced into bankruptcy rather than fight for my name, given the great expense, must have been a consideration. As if the financial burden incurred by me and Nissan Computers was not enough, Nissan Motor filed a lawsuit against the Internet Center, Inc., a corporation with three shareholders, in which I am the majority shareholder. The Internet Center, Inc. did not and does not utilize the word "NISSAN" in any way.
SEPTEMBER - 2002, Second Round of Summary Judgment.
The previous court rulings did not end this case. Nissan Motor filed a second round of Summary Judgment Motions, trying (and has been successful) to get the Court to deprive me of the right to a jury trial.
The Court, surprisingly, changed its attitude on this issue and:
1. Changed the relevant date for "fame" from 1991 to 1994.
2. Found that no reasonable jury could find that Nissan was not famous by 1994.
3. Found that Nissan Computer diluted Nissan Motor's trademark.
4. Found that the publication of information about this lawsuit, the comments
made by many people on ncchelp.org and my efforts to bring this issue to
the public, actually tarnished Nissan Motor's trademark.
Many legal experts view this case, not as a "law-breaking" case, but as a "law-making" case. The Court indicated that certain aspects of this case may be creating new law as well.
Nissan Motor is now asking the Court to transfer nissan.com to them entirely. The potential loss of a domain name in this fashion may set the wrong precedent for future cases and will open the door for any deep-pocket corporation to do the same. This may become "the law of the land" by being solely based on "the law of the jungle", and could affect you or someone you know.
DECEMBER - 2002, Final Injunction.
The district court issued a final Judgment (PDF) allowing Nissan Computer to keep its nissan.com and nissan.net domain names, but restricted our rights to do the following:
1. Posting Commercial content at nissan.com and nissan.net;
2. Posting advertising or permitting advertising to be posted by third parties at
nissan.com and nissan.net;
3. Posting disparaging remarks or negative commentary regarding Nissan Motor
Co., Ltd. or Nissan North America, Inc. at nissan.com and nissan.net;
4. Placing, on nissan.com or nissan.net, links to other websites containing
commercial content, including advertising; and
5. Placing, on nissan.com or nissan.net, links to other websites containing
disparaging remarks or negative commentary regarding Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.
or Nissan North America.
After reviewing this and other rulings of the district court, we believed that the only practical option was to appeal. One of the reasons for the appeal is that we and other experts considered the injunction and parts of other rulings to be a clear violation of our "First Amendment Rights" as it is to every American citizen's constitutional rights.
OCTOBER - 2003, Appeal Initial Motion.
Nissan Computer filed its Opening Brief (PDF) to the 9th circuit court of appeals, addressing the district court's rulings on:
A. Trademark Dilution
B. Trademark Infringement
C. Final Injunction
NOTE: It's a long brief, but will allow you to better understand the merits of this case.
JANUARY - 2004, Appeal Reply Motion.
Nissan Motor filed a consolidated brief opposing Nissan Computer's opening brief and a cross appeal on:
A. Trademark Infringement.
B. Final Injunction.
C. Requesting the court to force transfer Nissan.com to them.
Nissan Computer filed a Consolidated Brief (PDF) opposing NMC's cross appeal and replying to their opposition.
AUGUST - 2004, Appeal Ruling.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling reversing the case and remanding it back to the District Court. In a Published Opinion (PDF) the Appellant Court rejected Nissan Motor's cross appeal and reversed the District Court's ruling against Nissan Computer on Dilution and the broad scope of the Final Injunction.
Not to our surprise, Nissan Motor filed a motion for rehearing by the 9th Circuit's panel and a rehearing en banc (a rehearing by all of the Court of Appeals Judges). On September 2004, the 9th Circuit issued a Ruling (PDF) denying Nissan Motor's motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc.
DECEMBER - 2004, Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Nissan Motor filed a Petition for a "Writ of Certiorari" to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the Appellant Court ruling on the Infringement and First Amendment issues.
APRIL - 2005, U.S. Supreme Court Order.
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued an Order, (PDF) Denying Nissan Motor's Petition for a "Writ of Certiorari".
In another example of Nissan Motor's flexing its corporate might, age old eminent domain laws have been rewritten in Mississippi allowing the State to take land and homes from local landowners for the sole private benefit of Nissan Motor. How the State of Mississippi was "convinced" to change these laws is unclear, but it is clear that local individuals are being deprived of their property rights so Nissan Motor can build its own plant.
DECEMBER - 1999, Initial Filing.
More then five years after I registered nissan.com, legal action was instituted by Nissan Motor seeking $10,000,000 in damages, and to restrain me from the use of MY family name for business purposes on the Internet.
APRIL - 2002, First Round of Summary Judgments.
The court ruled on a summary judgment motions as follows:
1. "Cyber-Squatting" claim, in Nissan Computer's favor.
2. "Infringement on non-auto-related" claim, in Nissan Computer's favor.
3. "Infringement on auto-related" claim, in Nissan Motor's favor.
4. "Dilution" claim was sent to trial.
Nissan Motor's intention to make this case as expensive as possible for me was evident from the beginning. Undoubtedly, the notion that me and my company might be forced into bankruptcy rather than fight for my name, given the great expense, must have been a consideration. As if the financial burden incurred by me and Nissan Computers was not enough, Nissan Motor filed a lawsuit against the Internet Center, Inc., a corporation with three shareholders, in which I am the majority shareholder. The Internet Center, Inc. did not and does not utilize the word "NISSAN" in any way.
SEPTEMBER - 2002, Second Round of Summary Judgment.
The previous court rulings did not end this case. Nissan Motor filed a second round of Summary Judgment Motions, trying (and has been successful) to get the Court to deprive me of the right to a jury trial.
The Court, surprisingly, changed its attitude on this issue and:
1. Changed the relevant date for "fame" from 1991 to 1994.
2. Found that no reasonable jury could find that Nissan was not famous by 1994.
3. Found that Nissan Computer diluted Nissan Motor's trademark.
4. Found that the publication of information about this lawsuit, the comments
made by many people on ncchelp.org and my efforts to bring this issue to
the public, actually tarnished Nissan Motor's trademark.
Many legal experts view this case, not as a "law-breaking" case, but as a "law-making" case. The Court indicated that certain aspects of this case may be creating new law as well.
Nissan Motor is now asking the Court to transfer nissan.com to them entirely. The potential loss of a domain name in this fashion may set the wrong precedent for future cases and will open the door for any deep-pocket corporation to do the same. This may become "the law of the land" by being solely based on "the law of the jungle", and could affect you or someone you know.
DECEMBER - 2002, Final Injunction.
The district court issued a final Judgment (PDF) allowing Nissan Computer to keep its nissan.com and nissan.net domain names, but restricted our rights to do the following:
1. Posting Commercial content at nissan.com and nissan.net;
2. Posting advertising or permitting advertising to be posted by third parties at
nissan.com and nissan.net;
3. Posting disparaging remarks or negative commentary regarding Nissan Motor
Co., Ltd. or Nissan North America, Inc. at nissan.com and nissan.net;
4. Placing, on nissan.com or nissan.net, links to other websites containing
commercial content, including advertising; and
5. Placing, on nissan.com or nissan.net, links to other websites containing
disparaging remarks or negative commentary regarding Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.
or Nissan North America.
After reviewing this and other rulings of the district court, we believed that the only practical option was to appeal. One of the reasons for the appeal is that we and other experts considered the injunction and parts of other rulings to be a clear violation of our "First Amendment Rights" as it is to every American citizen's constitutional rights.
OCTOBER - 2003, Appeal Initial Motion.
Nissan Computer filed its Opening Brief (PDF) to the 9th circuit court of appeals, addressing the district court's rulings on:
A. Trademark Dilution
B. Trademark Infringement
C. Final Injunction
NOTE: It's a long brief, but will allow you to better understand the merits of this case.
JANUARY - 2004, Appeal Reply Motion.
Nissan Motor filed a consolidated brief opposing Nissan Computer's opening brief and a cross appeal on:
A. Trademark Infringement.
B. Final Injunction.
C. Requesting the court to force transfer Nissan.com to them.
Nissan Computer filed a Consolidated Brief (PDF) opposing NMC's cross appeal and replying to their opposition.
AUGUST - 2004, Appeal Ruling.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling reversing the case and remanding it back to the District Court. In a Published Opinion (PDF) the Appellant Court rejected Nissan Motor's cross appeal and reversed the District Court's ruling against Nissan Computer on Dilution and the broad scope of the Final Injunction.
Not to our surprise, Nissan Motor filed a motion for rehearing by the 9th Circuit's panel and a rehearing en banc (a rehearing by all of the Court of Appeals Judges). On September 2004, the 9th Circuit issued a Ruling (PDF) denying Nissan Motor's motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc.
DECEMBER - 2004, Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Nissan Motor filed a Petition for a "Writ of Certiorari" to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the Appellant Court ruling on the Infringement and First Amendment issues.
APRIL - 2005, U.S. Supreme Court Order.
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued an Order, (PDF) Denying Nissan Motor's Petition for a "Writ of Certiorari".
In another example of Nissan Motor's flexing its corporate might, age old eminent domain laws have been rewritten in Mississippi allowing the State to take land and homes from local landowners for the sole private benefit of Nissan Motor. How the State of Mississippi was "convinced" to change these laws is unclear, but it is clear that local individuals are being deprived of their property rights so Nissan Motor can build its own plant.
很遗憾不是中国人抢注的，不然一定要求倭国政府先道歉，后赔偿，再来“协商”买回去。
里面的地址 NC是哪？
早就打官司呢;P
还有飞利浦，也是久经考验才拿回来。
这个和飞利浦还不大一样。飞利浦是域名被抢注，
而这个是注册不同类的商品，并且还告了日产很多年。。。:D
还有飞利浦，也是久经考验才拿回来。
这个和飞利浦还不大一样。飞利浦是域名被抢注，
而这个是注册不同类的商品，并且还告了日产很多年。。。:D
原帖由 greatallah 于 2008-2-27 22:38 发表
很遗憾不是中国人抢注的，不然一定要求倭国政府先道歉，后赔偿，再来“协商”买回去。
这个不是cn 中国互联网信息中心说了不算的:D 而且 事实上国内法律对国际域名是毫无作用的
不要乱讲。。:D
事实上诉权扩张是常态，老共想伸手时，还是有人要倒霉。
事实上诉权扩张是常态，老共想伸手时，还是有人要倒霉。
chinese.com还不在中国人手上呢 也么见老共咋地:D
有人能做的事，人人都能做???:D
从这点,我们国内的企业要注意了,
事实上国内企业被'敲诈'的也多了
比如ccbcom
有些东西不是人家故意的，比如icbc.com 人家就明确对工行说 我的企业缩写就是这个，我不卖:D
年前，adidas.net（没看错，就是阿迪达斯）过期，结果一堆人去竞拍，最后成交价3k美元。
其实，域名这东西，和爱国否么多大关系。我所知的，不少人注册了cn，转而卖给老外的。有名的就属那个google.cn了
比如ccbcom
有些东西不是人家故意的，比如icbc.com 人家就明确对工行说 我的企业缩写就是这个，我不卖:D
年前，adidas.net（没看错，就是阿迪达斯）过期，结果一堆人去竞拍，最后成交价3k美元。
其实，域名这东西，和爱国否么多大关系。我所知的，不少人注册了cn，转而卖给老外的。有名的就属那个google.cn了
原帖由 greatallah 于 2008-2-27 22:38 发表
很遗憾不是中国人抢注的，不然一定要求倭国政府先道歉，后赔偿，再来“协商”买回去。
中国人注的就得还给人家了，是日本的也姓尼桑的人注册的
他姓尼桑他老子姓尼桑，他爷爷姓尼桑
所以，根本不是抢注！
只是注册了自己的姓而已
就这点比较硬，尼桑公司拿他没办法