我想申请《中台统独论坛》的斑竹，可以吗？

#

不知可否義務貢獻棉力﹐義務成為法律顧問﹖

#

成為法律顧問﹖还是法律坛主？

#

目前，网站的法律问题，到底是怎样状况呢？可以使用平常的法律控告网站吗？怎样的案例呢？

这个建议很有前瞻性，让我们讨论看看。

#

根據案例﹐網上的譭謗可以在誹謗法令下被起訴。
PETROLIAM NASIONAL BHD (PETRONAS) & ORS V. KHOO NEE KIONG
HIGH COURT MALAYA, PULAU PINANG
SU GEOK YIAM JC
[CIVIL SUIT NO: 22-623-2001]
5 JULY 2003

CIVIL PROCEDURE:Injunction - Interim injunction - To restrain publication of defamatory email and statements on the internet - Whether defendant sufficiently identified - Whether defendant the registrant and operator of impugned websites - Whether impugned email was sent by defendant - Whether impugned email and statements were defamatory - Whether plaintiffs suffered damage - Whether interim prohibitory injunctions should be granted
CIVIL PROCEDURE:Injunction - Interim injunction - To restrain passing off of internet domain names - Whether there was a serious issue to be tried - Whether defendant falsely represented that his company was associated with plaintiffs' company - Whether impugned domain names were instruments of fraud the use of which resulted in passing off - Whether interim prohibitory injunctions should be granted
EVIDENCE:Documentary evidence - Documents produced by computer - Application by plaintiffs for interim injunction to restrain defendant from publishing defamatory email and statements - Whether mandatory for plaintiffs to exhibit certificate under s. 90A Evidence Act 1950for computer printouts containing allegedly defamatory email and statements - Whether plaintiffs had to establish prima facie case or only show bona fide serious question to be tried - Whether deponent of plaintiffs' affidavit-in-support had personal knowledge of its contents - Whether disputed by defendant in affidavit-in-reply
TORT:Defamation - Libel - Electronic publication - Internet - Application for interim injunction to restrain publication of defamatory email and statements on the internet - Whether defendant sufficiently identified - Whether impugned email and statements were defamatory and untrue - Whether plaintiffs suffered damage
TRADEMARKS:Passing off - Internet domain names - Whether an intellectual property - Application for interim injunction to restrain passing off of internet domain names - Whether there was a serious issue to be tried - Whether defendant falsely represented that his company was associated with plaintiffs' company - Whether impugned domain names were instruments of fraud the use of which resulted in passing off

This was an inter partesapplication by the plaintiffs (Petroliam Nasional Berhad (PETRONAS), Petronas Dagangan Berhad and Petronas Gas Berhad) for interim prohibitory and mandatory injunctions to: (i) restrain the defendant from dealing in or passing off any internet domain names that contain the word 'petronas'; (ii) restrain the defendant from publishing or posting certain statements ('the impugned email') which the plaintiffs considered defamatory; and (iii) compel the defendant to transfer the domain name 'petronasgas.com' to the plaintiffs.

The defendant was an individual carrying on business as a sole proprietor under the trade name Araneum Consulting Services. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant had registered the domain names 'petronas-dagangan.com', 'petronasgas.com', 'mypetronasdagangan.com' and 'mypetronas.com' and was offering them for sale viathe email address 'araneum@email.com'. It was contended that the defendant also maintained a website called 'Search Malaysia' at the url www.petronasgas.com. The plaintiffs further contended that the webpages of 'Search Malaysia', which were also accessible viathe url www.searchmalaysia.com, had described 'petronasgas.com' as a subsidiary of 'searchmalaysia.com'.

The plaintiffs thus submitted that the defendant had misrepresented to the public and the business world that the websites operated by the defendant under or linked to domain names that incorporated the word 'petronas' were maintained or authorised by and/or connected to the plaintiffs; and that the defendant and his business were connected to or associated with the plaintiffs and/or that the products and services of the defendant were connected to or associated with the products and services of the plaintiffs or, alternatively, originated from or were those of the plaintiffs. It was the plaintiffs' case that this deception had caused confusion in the business world and amongst the public, as a consequence of which they suffered damage.

Held (allowing the application):

[1]The plaintiffs had shown that the name in the impugned email was that of the defendant, that the defendant was the sole proprietor of Araneum Consulting Services, and that both the websites www.petronasgas.com and www.searchmalaysia.com were operated by Araneum Consulting Services. They had also shown that the reliable search engine 'better-whois.com' yielded search results which indicated that either the defendant or Araneum Consulting Services was the registrant of the domain names 'petronas-dagangan.com', 'petronasgas.com', 'mypetronasdagangan.com' and 'mypetronas.com'. From the evidence, the defendant was most probably the person who had set up the websites www.petronasgas.com and www.searchmalaysia.com and sent the impugned email. Hence, the plaintiffs had sufficiently identified the defendant for the purpose of the injunctive relief they sought. (pp 318 e-g, 319 a-h, 320 a-g, 321 a-b & 323 b-c)

[2]It was notmandatory for the plaintiffs to exhibit a certificate (pursuant to s. 90A of the Evidence Act 1950) in respect of the computer printouts containing the impugned email and statements. The plaintiffs only had to show a bona fideserious question to be tried at this stage of the proceedings; they did not have to establish a prima faciecase. The deponent of the plaintiffs' affidavit-in-support had deposed that the contents of the affidavit were within his personal knowledge; and this was not challenged or disputed by the defendant in his affidavit-in-reply. (pp 324 d-f, 325 h & 326 a)

[3]The impugned email and statements were manifestly defamatory and obviously untrue. Their natural and ordinary and inferential meanings were, inter alia, that the plaintiffs had no lawful claim to domain names that contain the word 'petronas'; that they were oppressive, intimidating and extortionate to other local businesses; and that they were high-handed, arrogant, ignorant, incompetent and like robbers. The impugned email and statements were calculated to injure and disparage the plaintiffs' reputation, lower them in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, and bring them into public scandal, odium and contempt. The plaintiffs had also shown that the impugned email and statements were published to ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), at www.petronasgas.com and www.searchmalaysia.com, and on the prominent Malaysian newsgroup 'soc.culture.malaysia'. The plaintiffs had suffered irreparable loss and damage, and grave injury to their trading personality and reputation. Hence, the interim prohibitory injunctions sought should be granted to restrain the defendant from further defaming the plaintiffs on the internet or elsewhere. (pp 328 g-h, 329 a-h, 330 a-g & 331 a-d)

[4]By registering domain names that contain the word 'petronas', a serious issue to be tried had arisen as to whether the defendant was making the false representation that Araneum Consulting Services was connected to or associated with the plaintiffs or was the owner of the goodwill in the name PETRONAS (the statutory acronym for Petroleum Nasional Berhad). Further, the said domain names were instruments of fraud and any realistic use of them as domain names would result in passing off. Hence, the interim prohibitory injunctions sought should be granted to restrain the defendant from passing off any domain names that contain the word 'petronas'. (pp 335 g-h & 336 a-d)

[5]The plaintiffs' prayer for an interim mandatory injunction had become irrelevant. This was because the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center had, upon hearing the plaintiffs complaint, ordered the domain name 'petronasgas.com' to be transferred to the plaintiffs. (p 314 a-c)

[Plaintiffs' application allowed; interim prohibitory injunctions issued.]

#