Source: https://www.cyberlawnet.com/2004/07/index.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:20:07+00:00

Document:
The Immigration Department of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region has chosen to use FileNet's ECM solution to help streamline its application process for a recently launched Smart ID Card.
Under a new immigration identification system, Hong Kong's seven million residents are expected to replace their traditional ID cards with new multi-application smart identity cards by 2007. With the Smart ID Cards, holders will be able to enjoy a variety of government electronic services in a safe and secure manner.
Apart from immigration applications, a smart identity card can also support other value-added non-immigration applications, including e-Cert - digital signature certification - and library cards.
kept on microfilm and index cards.
It is reported that FileNet's Image Services is a core component of this project. In addition to providing the Immigration Department with a high-performance, high-capacity system for managing the capture, storage and retrieval of all historical ID applications and related records, it is also fully compliant with the government's exacting auditing procedures.
According to FileNet, integrating seamlessly with other enterprise applications and systems at the Hong Kong Immigration Department, FileNet's ECM solution enhances overall efficiency since it enables Immigration Department staff to retrieve historical ID records instantly without having to wait for microfilm or index cards to be found and dispatched from archives. This will help significantly increase the speed at which the new cards are processed. With the ECM solution in place, the Department now has a secure and permanent store of critical immigration information to safeguard from disaster and misuse.
PARTIES: The Complainant is Television Broadcasts Ltd., Kowloon, Hong Kong (“Complainant”). The Respondent is Hemmul aka Huang Zhi Ming, Guangzhou City, Guang Dong Province, CHINA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME: The domain name at issue is , registered with Dot.tv.
1. Complainant operates a commercial television station in Hong Kong.
2. Complainant has used the letters, TVB as its trademark since 1967.
3. Complainant registered trademark, TVB under the trademark laws of Burma/Union of Myanmar; Cambodia, France; Germany; Hong Kong; Japan; Malaysia; Panama; Peoples Republic of China; and South Africa. All of the trademark registrations were prior to Respondent's registration of .
4. Complainant states that it owns and operates a web site under the domain name, tvb.com since 1999. No evidence was presented to show this to be true. But since it is not disputed by Respondent, it is taken as admitted.
5. Respondent registered the domain name, on May 20, 2001.
6. Respondent is a resident of the Peoples Republic of China and was a resident on May 20, 2001.
7. Respondent was on constructive notice of Complainant's right in its trademark, TVB, on account of the trademark registration in the Peoples Republic of China.
8. Complainant has rights and interests in the trademark, TVB.
9. Respondent has no rights and interests in the domain name .
10. The trademark and disputed domain name are identical.
11. Respondent registered and is using the domain name, , in bad faith.
Complainant shows that it has used the trademark, TVB, since 1967. Complainant shows that it registered the trademark, TVB, in a number of countries including the Peoples Republic of China. The registrations all were undertaken prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name. Complainant clearly has rights in the trademark, TVB for the purposes of the requirements needed to proceed on this issue.
The trademark, TVB, is identical to the domain name, . Internet level indicators “such as ‘tv’ do not affect the similarity or identicality between the mark and a disputed domain name.” see Don Cornelius Productions, Inc. v. Fred Fluker d/b/a Futurevision, DTV2001-0026 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2001). see also Toronto Star Newspaper Ltd. v. Elad Cohen, DTV2000-0006 (Jan. 22, 2001), holding that the domain name “tstv.tv” and the trademark TSTV are identical. see also HSBC Holdings Plc v. Iain Rayner, DTV2001-0021 (WIPO Nov. 5, 2001); COMSAT Corporation v. TELE Satellite, DTV2001-0011 (WIPO June 7, 2001).
Complainant prevails on this issue.
Complainant shows that it has used the trademark, tvb, since 1967 in its operation of the television station in Hong Kong. Complainant registered the trademark in a number of countries including the People's Republic of China. It can be inferred that Complainant has never licensed or authorized Respondent to use the trademark. It can be inferred that there is no relationship between the parties, business or otherwise, that would permit Respondent to use the trademark, tvb. Complainant contends that it has exclusive right to use the mark. see America Online, Inc. v. Tencent Communications Corp. FA93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000). Respondent makes no claim that he has ever been known as tvb or tvb.tv.
As a result of Complainant's showing, and Respondent's apparent lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name tvb.tv, the burden must shift to Respondent to demonstrate Respondent's rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. see Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000); MedStaff Alternatives, Inc. v. Dustina M. Bennett, FA97260 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 11, 2001).
Respondent may demonstrate his rights and legitimate interests in the domain name by any of the methods set out in Paragraph 4(c) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. Respondent makes no attempt to show rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. Respondent merely contends that Complainant had not registered its trademark in Tuvalu nor taken active steps to put the registrar, DOT TV, on actual notice of Complainant's trademark rights. Complainant is not required to perform either of these acts to maintain its trademark rights. Complainant registered its trademark in the People's Republic of China, the country in which Respondent is a resident.
Respondent, having undertaken to show none of the factual situations that would establish rights and legitimate interests in TVB or , it must be found that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Complainant prevails on this issue.
It is Complainant's responsibility to show bad faith in order to prevail in a domain name dispute. See Paragraph 4, Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. Complainant's pleadings and submissions are so terse and incomplete that it makes it difficult to ascertain the true facts and circumstances of this case. Respondent's submissions are even more terse and incomplete. However, it is clear that any use of by Respondent on the Internet would create a situation where it would be “inconceivable that the respondent could make any active use of the disputed domain name without creating a false impression of association with the Complainant.” Sony Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000). See also Singapore Airlines Ltd v. P & P Servicios de Communicacion S.L., D2000-0643 (WIPO Aug. 29, 2000). That confusion is all the more evident when it is recognized that Complainant operates a television station. Any use on the Internet of in the areas of the People's Republic of China and Hong Kong, is bound to cause confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's web site or location or of a product or service on Respondent's web site or location. See Paragraph 4(c)(b)(iv), Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. The question remains whether Respondent will intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his web site or other on-line location. Respondent makes no attempt to show what he intends to do with the domain name. But upon notification by Complainant to Respondent of the possible trademark infringement between the trademark and the domain name, Respondent shut down the web site.
Respondent admits the following: “But this registration is not on purpose, and this is ratified by Television Broadcasts Limited in the communicate. We admit that we will transfer the domain name in dispute to Television Broadcasts Limited preferentially without damnify. And this attitude is ratified by Television Broadcasts Limited either…after realizing the attitude of the Television Broadcasts Limited, I have shut down the website…” Respondent states that he did not know of Complainant's trademark rights when the domain name was registered. The domain name was not registered “with malice” Respondent contends. There is no evidence to find “malice” in this case, and none is found. Malice has no part in domain name dispute proceedings.
The admission of Respondent that he will transfer the domain name in dispute to Complainant “preferentially without damnify” is taken to be an admission that the domain name infringes on the trademark of Complainant and that the use of the domain name will cause the situation proscribed by Paragraph 4(b)(iv). Under these circumstances, it is found that the elements of this section have been met. Complainant prevails on the bad faith issue.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE DOMAIN NAME, , NOW REGISTERED TO THE RESPONDENT, HEMMUL ALIAS OF HUANG ZHI MING, BE TRANSFERRED TO THE COMPLAINANT, TELEVISION BROADCASTS LTD.
Damage, Theft, or Disclosure of Electronic Information. Information security (data integrity, confidentiality, and availability) is critical to the expanding e-Financial Services industry. Sensitive transactions, such as customer payments via credit or debit card, health care information, etc. require a high degree of security and confidentiality.
Loss of Service. In cyberspace, the reasons for Web outages are largely the result of "intangible" or human events, and less likely due to uncontrollable causes such as fire or earthquake.
Authentication and Non-Repudiation. Especially in business to business e-commerce, both parties must be properly authenticated. A digital signature may be required to form a binding contract and two essential questions must be answered electronically: Can we with confidence confirm whom we are dealing with and can we prove that they did in fact make the transaction?
Computer Fraud. The costs of network/Internet fraud extend far beyond the fraud or crime itself. Financial losses alone may result from the need for network downtime while locating and fixing the security breach, the need for an emergency audit, public relations damage control, increased fraud insurance premiums, and loss of business.
Privacy. Concerns about privacy are increasing daily from regulators worldwide. The issue bridges confidentiality of information from a security standpoint and electronic protection of sensitive digitized data. The critical issue is protection of information from an identifiable person.
Malicious Code. Despite the advances in anti-virus software, this remains a serious global cause of data damage and destruction, disruption in service, and destruction of computer components.
Legal and Regulatory Uncertainty. At present, the extent to which banking, insurance, securities, and other laws will be affected by the Internet is largely unknown.
Intellectual Property, Content, and Advertising Infringement. Everything on a Web site can be copyrighted as intellectual property. Even business processes over the Web today can be patented. The Internet creates new exposures for content and advertising that are unlike any other medium; although it is complicated by lack of global uniformity in managing these issues.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.