阿里巴巴已经失去了Alibaba.info，由于证据不足。

巴斯光联最新消息：阿里巴巴已经失去了alibaba.info，仲裁失败。全球互联网巨头阿里巴巴近日向亚洲域名争议中心提交申请，要求拿回Alibaba.info所有权，结果因为证据不足，没有赢得仲裁。

据了解，阿里巴巴仍以争议域名alibaba.info具有恶意注册和使用性质为理由来进行上诉，然而，专家组对于阿里巴巴提交证据认定不足，争议域名Alibaba.info于2004年11月注册，其注册时间是晚于阿里巴巴公司申请商标时间，尽管阿里巴巴声称争议域名注册时，公司已小有名气，但专家组认定阿里巴巴公司的名气2004年仅局限在中国地区，该公司的声誉还没有大到海外域名注册者已得知该公司早已建立。

因此，专家组认定域名所有者仍合法持有Alibaba.info所有权，阿里巴巴集团败诉。

该小组还发现，INFO域名困扰阿里巴巴很长时间。毕竟，Alibaba.info被别人注册四天后，阿里巴巴注册了域名Alipay.info。

然而，近日阿里巴巴也曾提起要求拿回争议域名alibaba.org所有权案件，该案件便以阿里巴巴胜诉，这个案件中，阿里巴巴仍以同样的理由“恶意注册和使用争议域名性质”，但其所提交证据将为充分，才能够胜出。alibaba.org域名2005年注册，目前这个争议域名信息还未变更。

一般来说，域名争议仲裁要具备三要素，争议域名要满足注册时间晚于商标公司商标审批日期、混淆标志性商标和恶意使用三个要素，这样争议域名才有可能被拿回去。但此次，阿里巴巴上诉要求拿回Alibaba.info域名所有权，就是因未满足这三个条件。所以，企业要仲裁域名，并不是占了大优势。

巴斯光联英文版：

Alibaba loses domain name arbitration case.

Global internet giant Alibaba has lost a domain name dispute for the domain Alibaba.info because of insufficient evidence that the domain was registered in bad faith. One member of the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre panel dissented.

The majority of the panel took issue with Alibaba’s evidence that the domain name was registered in bad faith. Alibaba presented evidence that the domain name was used in bad faith but the evidence dated from several years after the domain was registered in 2004. The company also claimed that it was well known at the time the domain was registered but it only provided evidence of its international reputation from the preset year. The majority of the panel said this evidence is not enough to prove that Alibaba’s reputation in 2004 was big enough that the domain registrant “must have been aware” of the company when registering the domain.

The panel also found it troubling that Alibaba took so long to go after the .info domain name. After all, Alibaba registered the domain name Alipay.info four days after Alibaba.info was registered:

It must be assumed from this fact that the Complainant knew of the registration of disputed domain name at that time, but waited for more than 6 years to file the present Complaint case, apparently unconcerned that another party had used its name in a domain name and, in effect, encouraging the Respondent to continue to believe it was entitled to register the disputed domain name and to keep the registration.