International Domain Name Dispute: Chinese Daily Chemical Giant Accused of Judicial Pressure on Individual’s Overseas Assets
The top-level domain “liby.com”, registered in the United States since August 2001, has recently attracted attention due to ownership disputes. Liby Group, an industry giant based in Guangzhou, is accused of leveraging litigation to pressure an individual in an attempt to seize the rights to a US-registered domain. The group’s claims are said to disregard international domain name management rules and may set a negative precedent for the protection of individual property rights abroad.
The domain was originally registered in the US, and the ownership was later changed in accordance with ICANN international conventions through an email transfer. Liby Group initiated a lawsuit, asserting that “liby” is related to its Chinese brand name. However, key evidence shows:
- The group’s “liby” trademark was registered in September 2001, later than the domain;
- Its US trademark application was rejected;
- The “liby.com.cn” domain, held by Liby Group, was not practically utilized until 2014, and it belongs to China’s national top-level domain system.
The core legal issue centers on the imbalance of evidential burden between the giant corporation and the individual: Liby Group failed to prove its English brand’s reputation in the US in 2001, yet the court required the individual holder to prove the legitimacy of their ownership. Adding to public concern, Liby—as an industry leader—has been using the “.com.cn” domain since 2014, but after a 20-year gap, is now asserting rights over the international domain via litigation. This is seen as applying undue pressure on an individual by abusing its litigation advantage, while exceeding the statute of limitations and breaching the principle of good faith.
The international legal community has pointed out that ignoring the laws of the registration jurisdiction and individual property rights in such cases could set a dangerous precedent, allowing big corporations to interfere with the overseas assets of private individuals across jurisdictions. Similar cases in Europe and the United States have consistently emphasized the priority of the law of the place of registration, and required trademark owners to prove bad faith at the time of domain registration. The case is currently under appeal, and the international community is watching closely to see whether the Chinese judiciary can maintain a neutral stance on disputes over property rights between large enterprises and individuals.
Disclaimer: The above article is provided for general informational purposes only. The content is based on publicly available information, legal proceedings, and reported perspectives at the time of publication. Observer Voice does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the information presented, nor does it endorse any claims or opinions expressed in the article.
Observer Voice is the one stop site for National, International news, Sports, Editor’s Choice, Art/culture contents, Quotes and much more. We also cover historical contents. Historical contents includes World History, Indian History, and what happened today. The website also covers Entertainment across the India and World.
