Http://www.CompanyNameSucks.com: The Horizontal Effect of Fundamental Rights on 'Private Parties' within Autonomous Internet Law

German Law Journal

Volumn 4, Issue 12, 2003, Pages 3335-3358

  Karavas, Vaios ^a   Teubner, Gunther ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85177052576     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20718322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S2071832200012153     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. 1 Cf., Patrick Mayer, ‘Marke oder Meinungsfreiheit? Warum Greenpeace zu Recht die Domain „oil-of-elf“benutzt hat, available at http://www.freedomforlinks.de/Pages/oil-of-elf.html.
2. 2 Cf., BGHZ 149, 191 – „shell.de“and the commentary of Dietrich C. Becker, Von Namen und Nummern – Zur Behandlung von Kollisionen unerträglicher Rechtsmassen im Internet, in RECHTSVERFASSUNGSRECHT, (Gunther Teubner/Christian Joerges eds., 2003), at 271; Jörg Dittrich, Namensverletzung gem. § 12 BGB durch eine Domain trotz Gleichnamigkeit, JurPC: INTERNET-ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR RECHTSINFORMATIK, Web-Dok. 144/2002, available at http://www.jurpc.de; M. Körner, Gleichnamigkeitskonflikte bei Internet-Domain-Namen – Die „shell.de“Entscheidung des BGH, NJW 3442 (2002).
3. 3 Cf., on the use of generic concepts as domain names, ‘Mitwohnzentrale.de’, BGH, Judgment of 17.05.2001 – I ZR 251/99 –, BGHZ 148, 13; for case notations, cf., Dietrich C. Becker, supra note 2; Peer Zumbansen, Paving The Way For Cyberlaw: Two FCJ Decisions on Domain Names, 2 GERMAN LAW JOURNAL (2001), available at www.germanlawjournal.com/printphp?id=28.
4. 4 Cf., for a comprehensive review of the history of the case: http://archiv.greenpeace.de/GP_DOK_3P/BRENNPUN/F0011D.HTM.
5. 5 LG Berlin, Judgment of 18.01.2001 – 16.0.33/01, http://archiv.greenpeace.de/GP_DOK_3P/BRENNPUN/F0011C6.PDF.
6. 6 Kammergericht, Judgment of 23.10.2001 – 5 U 101/01, JurPC: INTERNET-ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR RECHTSINFORMATIK, Web-Dok. 130/2002, http//www.jurpc.de.
7. 7 See Patrick Mayer, supra note 1.
8. 8 Cf., from American jurisprudence, the ‘Scientology-case’, Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Netcom On-Line Communications Servs., Inc., 923, F. Supp. 1231, (N. D. Ca. 1995); cf., on conflict between copyright and free speech with regard to the aforementioned case, Yochai Benklar, Free as the Air to Common Use: First Amendment Constraints on Enclosure of the Public Domain, 74 N.Y.U. L. REV. 354 (1999), at 356.
9. 9 See Patrick Mayer, supra note 1.
10. 10 Currently, UDRP has no application to domain names in the country-specific Top-Level-Domains (ccTLDs), with the exception of the country-specific Top Level Domains of individual States (e.g., Tuvalu).
11. 11 Cf., for example, Société Accor contre M. Philippe Hartmann (D2001-0007): ‘under French law, whether a trademark may be freely used for a parody is controversial ... in the case of a public not speaking English, or even speaking some English but being unfamiliar with the slang, the meaning of the word ‘sucks’ may not be understood, nor its use in order to designate Web sites aimed at ‘cyberprotest’; Diageo plc v. John Zuccarini, Individually and t/a Cupcake Patrol (D2000 – 0996): ‘As the Internet extends far beyond the Anglophone world, a more difficult question arises as to whether non-English speaking users of the Internet would be confused into believing that such a site is owned and/or controlled by the Complainant. Because the word ‘sucks’ is a slang word with which all English speakers may not be familiar, this Administrative Panel concludes that there may well be circumstances where Internet users are not aware of the abusive connotations of the word and consequently associate the domain name with the owner of the trademark’; National Westminster Bank PLC v. Purge I.T. and Purge I.T. Ltd (D2000 – 0636); Caixa d’Estalvis y Pensions de Barcelona ("La Caixa") v. Namezero.com (D2001-0360): ‘Although converting "c"s into "k"s is a way of expressing feelings similar to those expressed by the word "sucks" in English, this practice is part of a countercultural Latin jargon and is unlikely to be understood by most Internet users throughout the world. They would not understand LAKAIXA as a political parody of LA CAIXA, but as something phonetically identical, and graphically confusingly similar, with respect to Complainant’s world-famous trademark LA CAIXA.’
12. 12 Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Dan Parisi (D2000-1015); McLane Company, Inc. v. Fred Craig (D2000-1455).
13. 13 Cf., for example, Thorsten Bettinger, ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, CR 234 (2000), at 235.
14. 14 Cf., Samuel P. Huntington, Transnational Organizations in World Politics, 25 WORLD POLITICS 333 (1973), at 344: ‘Transnationalism is the American way of expansion’.
15. 15 Cf., for the general discussion of the application of the ‘state action doctrine’ to the Internet: Paul S. Berman, Cyberspace and the State Action Debate: The Cultural Value of Applying Constitutional Norms to “Private” Regulation, 71 U. COL. L. REV. 1263 (2000); Irene Dmitrieva, Will Tomorrow Be Free? Application of State Action Doctrine to Private Internet Providers, in THE INTERNET UPHEAVAL 3 (Vogelsang/Compaine eds., 2000); Steven Gey, Reopening the Public Forum – From Sidewalks to Cyberspace, 58 OHIO ST. L. J. 1535 (1998); David Goldstone, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Cyber Forum: Public vs. Private in Cyberspace Speech, 69 U. COLOR. L. REV. 1 (1998); Noah D. Zatz, Sidewalks in Cyberspace: Making Space for Public Forums in the Electronic Enviroment, 12 HARV. J. L. & TECH. 149 (1998). By contrast, the problem of the horizontal effect of fundamental rights within the Internet seems to have troubled German doctrinal thought very little at all, cf., the supplementary remarks of Karl H. Ladeur, Ausschluss von Teilnehmern an Diskussionsforen im Internet, MMR 787 (2001); with regard to the blocking of content by the host provider, cf., Rufus Pichler, Meinungsfreiheit, Kunstfreiheit und neue Medien: Zwischen interessengerechter Auflösung von Rechtsgutkollisionen und "Zensur", AfP 429 (1999), at 433; and Franz C. Mayer, Recht und Cyberspace, NJW 1782 (1996), at 1787.
16. 16 § 15 (a) ICANN Rules: ‘A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.’
17. 17 On the problem of the law applicable to trademark conflicts in the Internet, cf., Annette Kur, Territorialität versus Globalität – Kennzeichenkonflikte im Internet, WRB 935 (2000).
18. 18 Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung, 28.10.2002, at 46: ‘.com, .de oder .fr?’.
19. th Edition), First Section, §8 III4, Materiellprivatrechtliche Lösungen im IPR, at 269; E. Steindorff, SACHNORMEN IM INTERNATIONALEN PRIVATRECHT (1958).
20. 20 Cf., on this question, Michael Froomkin, Semi-Private International Rulemaking: Lessons Learned from the WIPO Domain Name Process, in REGULATING THE GLOBAL INFORMATION SOCIETY 211 (C. T. Mardsen ed. 2000); see with regard to ICANN, Jonathan Zittrain, ICANN: Between the Public and the Private, Comments Before Congress, 14 BERKLEY TECH. L. J. (1999), available at http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol14/Zittrain/html/reader.html.
21. 21 Cf., for a small representative overview of the, by now inaccessibly bulky, literature on the horizontal effect of fundamental rights, Hans D. Jarass, Die Grundrechte: Abwehrrechte und objektive Grundsatznormen. Objektive Grundrechtsgehalte, insbes. Schutzpflichten und privatrechtsgestaltende Wirkung, in FESTSCHRIFT 50 JAHRE BUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHT 35 (Badura/Horst Dreier eds., 2001); Claus W. Canaris, GRUNDRECHTE UND PRIVATRECHT: EINE ZWISCHENBILANZ (1999); Uwe Diederichsen, Das Bundesverfassungsgericht als oberstes Zivilgericht, AcP 171 (1998); ibidem, Die Selbstbehauptung des Privatrechts gegenüber dem Grundgesetz, JA 57 (1997); Dieter Medicus, DER GRUNDSATZ DER VERHÄLTNISMÄSSIGKEIT IM DEUTSCHEN PRIVATRECHT (1997); Eike Schmidt, Verfassungsgerichtliche Einwirkungen auf zivilistische Grundprinzipien und Institutionen, KritV 424 (1995); Johannes Hager, Grundrechte im Privatrecht, JZ 373 (1994); Stephan Oeter, Drittwirkung der Grundrechte und die Autonomie des Privatrechts, AöR 529 (1994); Konrad Hesse, VERFASSUNGSRECHT UND PRIVATRECHT (1988); Robert Alexy, THEORIE DER GRUNDRECHTE 475 (1985); Walter Leisner, GRUNDRECHTE UND PRIVATRECHT (1960); Guenther Dürig, Grundrechte und Zivilrechtssprechung, in VOM BONNER GRUNDGESETZ ZUR GESAMTDEUTSCHEN VERFASSUNG, FS. H. NAWIASKY 157 (1956). Newer theories on fundamental rights doctrine which approach the problem of the horizontal effect of fundamental rights as a ‘multi-polar legal relationship’ (mehrpolige Grundrechtsverhältnis), or seek to reinterpret the issue as a triangular relationship between State (State, Administration, Justice System) and the two parties in conflict, are nonetheless inappropriate, deriving as they do from the narrow public law perspective of the transposition of the political constitution to society. Cf., with particular regard to this point, Christian Calliess, RECHTSSTAAT UND UMWELTSTAAT – ZUGLEICH EIN BEITRAG ZUR GRUNDRECHTSDOGMATIK IM RAHMEN MEHRPOLIGER VERFASSUNGSRECHTSVERHÄLTNISSE (2001) and Matthias Ruffert, VORRANG DER VERFASSUNG UND EIGENSTÄNDIGKEIT DES PRIVATRECHTS – EINE VERFASSUNGSRECHTLICHE UNTERSUCHUNG ZUR PRIVATRECHTSWIRKUNG DES GRUNDGESETZES (2001). For a systems theory informed critique, cf., Gunther Teubner, Ein Fall von struktureller Korruption? Die Familienbürgschaft in der Kollision unverträglicher Handlungslogiken, KritV 388 (2000); from the perspective of democracy theory, Oliver Gerstenberg, Verfassung und die Grenzen judizieller Sozialregulierung, in VERANTWORTUNG IN RECHT UND MORAL 141 (Ulrich Neumann/Lorenz Schulz eds., 2000).
22. 22 Christoph Graber and Gunther Teubner attempt such an approach in the private context of artistic freedom, cf., Art and Money: Constitutional Rights in the Private Sphere, OXFORD JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES 61 (1998). Cf., for the English debate on fundamental rights in the private context, Andrew Clapham, HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE PRIVATE SPHERE (1996); Hugh Collins, JUSTICE IN DISMISSAL (1992); Joseph Raz, THE MORALITY OF FREEDOM (1986); W. N. Nelson, Human Rights and Human Obligations, 23 NOMOS 281 (1981).
23. 23 Gunther Teubner, Globale Zivilverfassungen: Alternativen zur staatszentrierten Verfassungstheorie, ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR AUSLÄNDISCHES ÖFFENTLICHES RECHT UND VÖLKERRECHT (2003); ibidem, Vertragswelten: Das Recht in der Fragmentierung von Private Governance Regimes, RECHTSHISTORISCHES JOURNAL 234 (1998), at 257; Christoph Graber/Gunther Teubner, see supra, note 22.
24. 24 Debate on the code almost has a natural law quality about it, cf., Emile Brousseau, Internet Regulation: Does Self Regulation Require an Institutional Framework, Conference Paper (2001), available at http://www.isnie.org/ISNIE01/Papers01/broussaeu.pdf; Lawrence Lessig, CODE AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE (1999); Joel R. Reidenberg, Lex Informatica: The Formulation of Information Policy Rules Through Technology, 76 TEXAS L. REV. 553 (1998), available at http://reidenberg.home.sprynet.com/lex_informatica.pdf; James Boyle, Foucault in Cyberspace: Surveillance, Sovereignty, and Hard-Wired Censors, (1997), available www.wcl.american.edu/pub/faculty/boyle/foucault.htm. at
25. 25 Seen from this instrumentalist point of view, the differences beween the two protagonists of the Internet Constitution are few indeed: Lawrence Lessig, see supra, note 24; David Post, Anarchy, State, and the Internet: An Essay on Law-Making in Cyberspace, J. ONLINE L. (1995), available at http://warthog.cc.wm.edu/law/publications/jol/post.html.
26. 26 Cf, for this legal functional triad, cf., Niklas Luhmann, DAS RECHT DER GESELLSCHAFT (1993), at 156.
27. 27 Cf., Yochai Benkler, Looking Trough the Glass: Alice and the Constitutional Foundations of the Public Domain, Conference Paper (2001), available at http://james-boyle.com; Lawrence Lessig, THE FUTURE OF IDEAS (2001), at 13.
28. 28 Cf., Scott M. Donahey, Divergence in the UDRP and the Need for Appellate Review, (2002), available at http://udrplaw.net/DonaheyPaper.htm.
29. 29 Cf, on the issue of the horizontal direct effect of fundamental rights within the UDRP, Adam Gold-stein, ICANNSucks.biz (And Why You Can’t Say That): How Fair Use of Trademarks in domain names is Being Restrained, 12 FORDHAM INTEL. PROP., MED. & ENTER. L. J. 1151 (2002); Milton Mueller, RULING THE ROOT – INTERNET GOVERNANCE AND THE TAMING OF CYBERSPACE (2002), at 245; Keith Blackman, The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy: A Cheaper Way to Hijack Names and Supress Critics, 15 HARV. J. L. & TECH. 211 (2001); David C. Najarian, Internet Domains and Trademarks Claims: First Amendment Considerations, 41 J. L. & TECH. 127 (2001), also available at http://www.idea.piercelaw.edu/articles/41/41_1/5.Najarian.pdf; Rebecca S. Sorgen, Trademark Confronts Free Speech on the Information Superhighway: “Cybergripers” Face a Constitutional Collision, 22 LOYOLA L. A. ENTER. L. REV. 115 (2001).
30. 30 Michael A. Froomkin, ICANN's Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy - Causes and (Partial) Cures, BROOKLIN L. REV. 637 (2002), at 640.
31. 31 See Michael A. Froomkin, supra note 30, at 643.
32. 32 See Keith Blackman, supra note 29.
33. 33 See Keith Blackman, supra note 29, at 241.
34. 34 Systems theory argues that this plurality was always a part of the lex mercatoria. ‘Our definitive question would be: where are norms actually produced. In national politics and in international political relations? Or in global economic and other social processes? The hypothesis also seems to be well founded in legal experience that a global economic law is developing along all three dimensions. Of course, this presupposes a pluralistic theory of norm production which treats political, legal and social law production on an equal footing’, cf., Gunther Teubner, Globale Bukowina: Legal Pluralism in the World Society, in GLOBAL LAW WITHOUT A STATE 3, (Gunther Teubner ed., 1997), at 11.
35. 35 Sally F. Moore, Law and Social Change: The Semi-Autonomous Social Field as an Appropriate Subject of Study, 7 LAW AND SOCIETY REVIEW 719 (1973).
36. st Century View of Transnational Commercial Law, INTER’L ARB. L. REV. 91 (2000).
37. 37 Gralf P. Calliess, Reflexive Transnational Law: The Privatisation of Civil Law and the Civilisation of Private Law, ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR RECHTSSOZIOLOGIE 185 (2002), at 188.
38. 38 Cf., for the relevant suggestions of Gralf P. Calliess, note 37, at 201.
39. 39 Despite high degrees of inconstency between the decisions of ICANN-Panels, we can identify the emergence of a global ‘common law’ in relation to the abusive registration of domain names, cf., Robert Badgley, Internet Domain Names and ICANN Arbitration: The Emerging “Law“of Domain Name Custody Disputes, 5 TEXAS REV. OF LAW AND POLITICS 343 (2001).
40. 40 Cf., on this point, the suggestion of Scott M. Donahey, supra note 28.
41. 41 Cf., for the history of the establishment of ICANN and its relationship with the American Government, cf, Milton Mueller, supra note 29.
42. 42 With a particular emphasis upon the status of ICANN as a ‘Global Regulatory Regime’, cf., the analyses of Dirk Lehmkuhl, The Resolution of Domain Names vs. Trademark Conflicts: A Case Study on regulation Beyond the Nation State, and Related Problems, ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR RECHTSSOZIOLOGIE 61 (2002), at 71; Milton Mueller, supra note 29, at 211; Christian Walter, Constitutionalizing (Inter)national Governance – Possibilities for and Limits to the Development of an International Constitutional Law, 44 GERMAN YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 171 (2001), at 186.
43. 43 Cf., Gunther Teubner (2003), supra note 23.
44. 44 Nathalie Voser, Current Development: Mandatory Rules of Law as a Limitation on the Law Applicable in International Commercial Arbitration, 7 THE AMER. REV. of INTER’L ARB. 319 (1996), at 349.
45. 45 Ursula Stein, LEX MERCATORIA – REALITÄT UND THEORIE (1995), at 170.
46. 46 Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany) v. RJG Engineering Inc.Case (D2001-1401); Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Republic of Germany) v. RJG Engineering Inc./Gerhard Lauck (D2002-0110).
47. 47 Empirical studies by social scientists such as Michael Geist, in particular, have kindled a lively debate on the decisional practice of ICANN-Panels, Michael Geist, Fair.com? An Examination of the Allegations of Systemic Unfairness in ICANN UDRP, (August 2001), available at http://aix1u0ttawy.ca/~geist/.