March 1, 1999
					Japan Network Information Center

			Policy Toward Domain Name Dispute

1.   Introduction

   Despite the fact that there has been no court judgment about
domain name in Japan as in many other countries, the policy toward the
Domain Name Dispute is becoming an integral part of the responsibility
in registering domain names.  This document explains policies of the
Japan Network Information Center(JPNIC) toward this issue.

2.   Background

   Current JPNIC policies about domain name registration are as
follows:
 
  i.   first come, first served,
  ii.  one domain name per organization,
  iii. restriction of domain name transfer,
  iv.  local presence in Japan.

   Among these four, JPNIC believes that "one domain name per
organization" and "restriction of domain name transfer" provide
deterrent effects against cyber squatting, one of the typical causes
of domain name dispute relating to trademark and trade-name.

   Under these fundamental policies and considerations, JPNIC did not
further establish procedures for preemption of abusive registration,
or for challenge against registered domain names based on claims of
trademark or trade name rights.  However, recent explosion of domain
name registration leads the JPNIC to reconsider domain name dispute
policy, and how intellectual property issues relate to it.

3.   New revision of Domain Name Registration Rules

   In March 1998, JPNIC effectuated a new revision of the Domain Name
Registration Rules, and the above-mentioned policies have been
retained as important parts of the new rules.  In establishing the
revision, JPNIC basically identified two categories of disputes for
domain names:

  i.   dispute between JPNIC and an applicant, relating to the
       procedure for domain name registration;

  ii.  dispute between a domain name holder and an owner of a
       trademark or trade name, for example as in a dispute based upon
       the Trade Mark Act of 1960 or the Unfair Competition Prevention
       Act of 1994.

   For the later case, the JPNIC considered four possible methods to
resolve the dispute;

  i.   introducing a "preemption system" based upon trademark or trade
       name;

  ii.  empowering the trademark or trade name owner against the domain
       name holder based upon that trademark or trade name, thus
       allowing the trademark or trade name owner to demand JPNIC to
       suspend the domain name.

  iii. providing a "panel" by JPNIC to handle the dispute between the
       parties, which would have a similar function to an arbitration
       organization or a mediation authority;

  iv.  establishing a structure able to enforce the legal decision
       which prohibits a domain name holder to use the registered
       domain name.

   Each of these four methods has merits and demerits.  From the
JPNIC's consideration, the first three of the above-mentioned methods
are not realistic unless an available data-base of trademark, trade
name and clear judicial precedents is established.  Hence the last
method is the only available one which the JPNIC can currently adopts.


4.   Dispute Policy in the New Rule

  Considering the above viewpoints, the JPNIC establishes the
following provisions.


Article 30.  (Revocation)
        JPNIC may revoke any domain name;

  (1) when it is found that there is just cause to reject a domain name
      registration application;

  (2) when its Registrant fails to comply with any request pursuant to
      Article 4.2 or any of its obligations under Article 26.2 or
      Chapter 7;

  (3) when a certified copy of any final court decree, settlement
      agreement or stipulation, conciliation agreement or arbitration
      judgment which prohibits use of such domain name and which is
      enforceable in Japan or any other document analogous thereto is
      provided by any third party; or

  (4) when any circumstances arise under which the registration of
      such domain name shall be clearly and presently inadmissible to
      the public.


    Article 31.  (Revocation Proceedings)

31.1 Any decision for revocation set forth in Article 30 shall be
     made, upon the Secretariat's advice, after scrutinies, by the
     Board of Trustees or a Reviewing Committee consisting of at least
     three (3) members of the Board of Trustees to be appointed by the
     Board(the Board of Trustees and such review committee being
     hereinafter sometimes collectively referred to as the "Reviewing
     Committee").

31.2 In the event the Reviewing Committee scrutinizing any proposed
     revocation case pursuant to Section 31.1, it shall provide the
     relevant Registrant with prior notice of hearing specifying,
     among other things, the date, time and place on or at which a
     hearing shall be held at least two (2) weeks before the day set
     for the hearing.


   This structure doesn't provide an active domain name solution
policy, but just a contractual frame work in which the JPNIC can
revoke the registered domain name under a final court decree or
anything resembling that.  From the JPNIC's points of view, however,
the responsibility of the JPNIC toward the domain name dispute is not
to establish a legal structure which would compromise the conflicting
interests of the domain name holder and the trademark or trade name
owner, but to establish a framework under the Domain Name Registration
Rule that would reflect the judicial decree, etc... and resolve
disputes in accordance with existing legal apparatus and public
policy.


5.   Conclusion

   The JPNIC realizes the chaos of conflicting interests.  It also
understands there are several alternatives to be considered for the
framework of handling domain name disputes.  JPNIC shall make its best
effort to study the issues and continue searching for more appropriate
solutions.

	Dialog with the Arbitration Center for Industrial Properties

						March 1, 1999
					Japan Network Information Center
						Naomasa Maruyama

   The Arbitration Center for Industrial Properties was founded
jointly by Japan Patent Attorney Association(JPAA) and Japan
Federation of Bar Associations(Nichibenren) in March of 1998.  At that
time, JPNIC had just finished the renewal of Domain Name Registration
Rules, and was further looking at possibilities of so-called
"Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR)" in Japan.  Fortunately, the
Arbitration Center showed interest in ADR, so we started to hold a
discussion on this topic.  This discussion is, in some sense, similar
to the discussion about ADR for Generic TOP level domains(gTLDs),
which is taking place under the initiative of the World Intellectual
Property Organization(WIPO).  In spite of discussions which have
continued for about ten months, we still can not find a way to start
the ADR, but have been able to reach some common understandings:

1. A system like ADR is quite important to prevent "Cyber squatting".

2. The domain name itself does not automatically constitute "use" of
   a trademark in the sense of the Trademark Act.

3. In almost all cases of domain name dispute, it is necessary to take
   the Unfair Competition Prevention Act into account, as well as the
   Trademark Act.

   The second point is very important for Domain Name registries: it
means that it is not so easy to apply Trademark rights to domain
name policies.  In this sense, JPNIC can not completely accept the
current Domain Name Dispute Policy of NSI.

   The third point is also an important observation.  This means that
ADR might go beyond the patent attorneys' scope of practice, and
because the Arbitration Center for Industrial Properties is co-founded
by JPAA and Nichibenren, this might constitute a rather high barrier
preventing the Center from running ADR.  Recently, Nichibenren sent
their opinion to the Japan Patent Office asserting that the current
restriction for the patent attorneys' scope of practice should be
relaxed to include the cases of unfair competition which are closely
related to intellectual properties.  This is, perhaps, a good sign for
the possibility of creating ADR under the Center.