1 / 22

WIPO and ccTLDs ccTLD Best Practices: Latest and Future developments Luxembourg, July 10, 2005

WIPO and ccTLDs ccTLD Best Practices: Latest and Future developments Luxembourg, July 10, 2005. Johannes Christian Wichard Deputy Director WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. Overview. WIPO and how we got involved WIPO Domain Name Experience UDRP Statistics WIPO ccTLD Program

levi
Download Presentation

WIPO and ccTLDs ccTLD Best Practices: Latest and Future developments Luxembourg, July 10, 2005

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WIPO and ccTLDsccTLD Best Practices: Latest and Future developmentsLuxembourg, July 10, 2005 Johannes Christian Wichard Deputy Director WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

  2. Overview • WIPO and how we got involved • WIPO Domain Name Experience • UDRP Statistics • WIPO ccTLD Program • UDRP as a flexible model • Essential elements • Adjustable elements • Existing approaches

  3. WIPO Experience in Domain Name Dispute Resolution • First WIPO Internet Domain Name Process • UDRP development and implementation • Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process • Protection of identifiers other than trademarks? • New gTLDs • Implementation of IP protection mechanisms • Report on IP implications of new gTLDs • WIPO ccTLD program • WIPO ccTLD Best Practices for the Prevention and Resolution of IP Disputes • Dispute resolution provider for 44 ccTLDs

  4. Conflicts • Domain names are used as identifiers • Consumers expect trademarks to be present on the Internet (www.TRADEMARK.com) • Domain name can exist only once per gTLD and is attributed on a “first-come first-served” basis • Trademarks are an easy target for “cybersquatters” • Register trademarks as domain names in order to profit financially on the expense of the trademark owner

  5. Conflict: Hypothetical • <yvessaintlaurent.com> • Web Site: “under construction” • WHOIS: • Domain Name registered with US Registrar • In December 1998 • Domain registrant in Korea • Offer for sale: USD 10,000

  6. Solution? • File a lawsuit in court But • Where? (international jurisdiction) • Under what law? • How to enforce the judgment? • Time and Money!

  7. WIPO Internet Domain Name Process • US Government “White Paper” June 1998 • Requests WIPO to develop solutions for conflict between trademarks and domain names • WIPO Internet Domain Name Process July 1998 - April 1999 • online consultations and regional consultations with the “Internet community” • Final Report April 30, 1999

  8. WIPO Internet Domain Name Process Conflict Trademark - Domain Names Administrative Procedure Options Courts A procedure permitting trademark owners to resolve clear cases of abusive domain name registration (cybersquatting) without going to court

  9. Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) • Developed on the basis of WIPO Recommendations • Adopted by ICANN • In force since December 1999 • Applicable to gTLDs • Not applicable to ccTLDs - unless explicit adoption

  10. UDRP ProcedureOverview Complaint Notification Response Panel App. Decision Implement. +3 +20 +10 +5 +14 3 member Panel? Court? Deficiencies +5 +15 Average duration: 45-60 days

  11. WIPO UDRP Infrastructure • Multilingual web site with extensive explanations • Model Complaint and Response • 400 Panelists from 50 countries • Searchable Index of WIPO UDRP Panel Decisions • Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions

  12. UDRP StatisticsJune 2005 • 7,633 cases since December 1999 • 1999: 1 • 2000: 1,857 • 2001: 1,557 • 2002: 1,207 • 2003: 1,100 • 2004: 1,176 • Jan.-June 2005: 735 • 14,474 DNs • .com 77.7%, .net 12.0%, .org 6.7%, .info 2.0%, .biz 1.5%

  13. UDRP StatisticsJune 2005 • Decided: 5,551 • 4,589 (82.6%) Transfer • 47 (0.8%) Cancellation • 915 (16.5%) Denied • Terminated: • 1.419 (19%) - mostly settlement • Parties from 122 countries • Complainant: US, UK, FRA, GER, SPA • Respondent: US, UK, SPA, ROK, CHINA • 12 languages • English, Spanish, Korean, French, German, Chinese, Italian, Russian, Japanese, Portuguese, Norwegian,

  14. ccTLDs • No obligation to adopt the UDRP • But protection of IP rights? • National courts? • Less suitable the more “open” a ccTLD is • WIPO ccTLD Program: advice on request • WIPO ccTLD Best Practices • Avoiding conflicts through appropriate registration practices • e.g.: registration agreement, contact details, WHOIS, submission to administrative procedure • Protecting IP in ccTLDs through administrative procedures • UDRP as a model that can be adjusted and “localized”

  15. UDRP as a flexible model • Mandatory procedure on a contractual basis • Part of domain name registration terms and conditions • Comp. UDRP contractual hierachy: Registrant---Registrar---ICANN • Efficient (quick results at moderate costs) • Direct enforcement • Transfer or cancellation (recovery of costs?) • Limited scope and streamlined procedure • Written (online) procedure • Single exchange of pleadings • Deadlines • Blocking domain name transfers during the procedure

  16. UDRP as a flexible model • Due process safeguards • Preserve recourse to national courts of justice • Facilitates acceptance • UDRP: less than 1% of all decisions contested • Neutrality • Independent of domain name registration and administration • Impartial and independent decision-makers • WIPO: 400 Panelists from 50 countries • Reasoned decisions, available to the public • Notice • All possible means (Whois!) • Burden of proof on Complainant

  17. UDRP as a flexible model • Adjustable elements, e.g.: • Trademarks only or also other identifiers? • Trade names, personal names, geographical indications,... • Country names, names and abbreviations of IGOs • Local/regional rights only or also “foreign” rights? • Factor i.a.: “Nexus” requirement for domain name registration? • Restricted to bad faith registration and/or use • Or any infringement of IP right?

  18. UDRP as a flexible model • Adjustable elements, e.g.: • Procedure • Language(s) • Number, nationality and qualification of Panelists • Local/regional and international dispute resolution providers • Fees • Combine with mediation element • Balance: • IP owners’ interest in uniformity and possibility of consolidating complaints against the same dn holder • Need for adaptations to local environment

  19. WIPO ccTLD Experience • Center: Dispute Resolution Provider for 44 ccTLDs • initial period: smaller (.sh) or “de facto” gTLDs (.tv) • then: more established TLDs (.au, .ie, .mx, .nl, .ch, .fr) • 267 cases (30 June 2005) • 156 in favor of complainant (mostly transfer) • 21 dismissed • 66 terminated (mostly settled) • 24 pending

  20. WIPO ccTLD Experience • Types of Policies: • UDRP: 30 • .ag, .am, .as, .bs, .bz, .cc, .cd, .co, .cy, .dj, .ec, .fj, .gt, .ki, .la, .md, .mw, .na, .nu, .pa, .ph, .pk, .pn, .ro, .sc, .tk, .tt, .tv, .ue, .ve • Variations of UDRP: 7 • .ae, .au, .ie, .ir, .mx, .tm, .ws • Other administrative procedure (UDRP-inspired): 4 • .ch, .li, .fr, .re • Arbitration: 4 • .ac, .nl, .pl, .sh

  21. WIPO ccTLD Experience • WIPO ccTLD database • Links to the websites of 243 ccTLDs • Availability of registration agreement? • Existence of WHOIS service? • Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures? • We are grateful for receving your updates • arbiter.mail@wipo.int

  22. Further Information • Web Site: • http://arbiter.wipo.int • Mailing lists • http://arbiter.wipo.int/subscribe/all.html • E-mail: • arbiter.mail@wipo.int • christian.wichard@wipo.int

More Related