Wang Weiwei
There are various opinions on whether domain names are the objects of contractual rights or absolute rights. China’s judicial decisions adopt the ‘absolute right theory’, while those of the United States, Germany and other countries tend to adopt the ‘obligatory right theory’. China’s Civil Code and judicial interpretations of domain name need more clear provisions on incorporeal things. The question of whether a domain name can be the object of the absolute property right not only involves possession of domain name but also concerns the applicability of rules on possessory protection and the transfer rules, even influences the legal effect of trademark-related infringement. The discussion is about issues of domain name as the object of absolute right and possession of domain name, in order to compare the doctrinal rationality of domestic and foreign judicial decisions, and clarify the legal basis of domain name. It is also meaningful for further construction of the ‘incorporeal things’ concept and to develop the property law system of China’s Civil Code.
内容提要 在数字经济立法的背景下，域名的客体定位和归属规则存在尚待充分展开的争议。《民法典》缺少对域名等无体物的明确规定。司法裁判倾向于采取的域名“绝对权说”，与美国、德国等国家的“债权说”存在分歧。域名能否作为归属权的客体以及域名的权利属性，不仅关涉到占有保护规则的适用与否，还涉及权利转让与物的转让规则的差异，甚至影响在先权利侵权的判定。自罗马法以来，物的有体性并非财产权客体的必然。域名持有主体与域名的关系具有直接支配性和排他性，并区别于与域名注册管理和服务机构的合同关系。这种生活关系层面的主客体关系，使域名得以作为绝对性的无体财产权的客体，纳入以《民法典》物权编为基本规则的物法体系。域名的可占有性以及占有保护规则的可适用性，为域名转让适用占有移转规则提供了基础。