WIPO and cc TLDs cc TLD Best Practices
WIPO and cc. TLDs cc. TLD Best Practices: Latest and Future developments Luxembourg, July 10, 2005 Johannes Christian Wichard Deputy Director WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
Overview l l WIPO and how we got involved WIPO Domain Name Experience – – l UDRP Statistics WIPO cc. TLD Program UDRP as a flexible model F Essential elements F Adjustable elements l Existing approaches
WIPO Experience in Domain Name Dispute Resolution l First WIPO Internet Domain Name Process – l Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process – l Protection of identifiers other than trademarks? New g. TLDs – – l UDRP development and implementation Implementation of IP protection mechanisms Report on IP implications of new g. TLDs WIPO cc. TLD program – – WIPO cc. TLD Best Practices for the Prevention and Resolution of IP Disputes Dispute resolution provider for 44 cc. TLDs
Conflicts l l 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 g. TLD 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
Conflict: Hypothetical l <yvessaintlaurent. com> l Web Site: “under construction” l WHOIS: – – – l Domain Name registered with US Registrar In December 1998 Domain registrant in Korea Offer for sale: USD 10, 000
Solution? l File a lawsuit in court But l l Where? (international jurisdiction) Under what law? How to enforce the judgment? Time and Money!
WIPO Internet Domain Name Process l l l 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 – l online consultations and regional consultations with the “Internet community” Final Report April 30, 1999
WIPO Internet Domain Name Process Conflict Trademark - Domain Names Courts Options Administrative Procedure A procedure permitting trademark owners to resolve clear cases of abusive domain name registration (cybersquatting) without going to court
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) l Developed on the basis of WIPO Recommendations l Adopted by ICANN l In force since December 1999 l l Applicable to g. TLDs Not applicable to cc. TLDs - unless explicit adoption
UDRP Procedure Overview . t. n n p e e io s p n t n A m o a i o l e s l ic p e i f p s i c n t e e a o R Im D P N t n i la p m o C +3 Deficiencies +5 +20 +5 3 member Panel? +15 Average duration: 45 -60 days +14 Court? +10
WIPO UDRP Infrastructure l Multilingual web site with extensive explanations l Model Complaint and Response l 400 Panelists from 50 countries l l Searchable Index of WIPO UDRP Panel Decisions Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions
UDRP Statistics June 2005 l 7, 633 cases since December 1999 – – – – l 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%
UDRP Statistics June 2005 l Decided: 5, 551 – – – l Terminated: – l 1. 419 (19%) - mostly settlement Parties from 122 countries – – l 4, 589 (82. 6%) Transfer 47 (0. 8%) Cancellation 915 (16. 5%) Denied 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,
cc. TLDs l No obligation to adopt the UDRP – But protection of IP rights? F National courts? F Less suitable the more “open” a cc. TLD is l WIPO cc. TLD Program: advice on request – WIPO cc. TLD Best Practices F Avoiding conflicts through appropriate registration practices • e. g. : registration agreement, contact details, WHOIS, submission to administrative procedure F Protecting IP in cc. TLDs through administrative procedures • UDRP as a model that can be adjusted and “localized”
UDRP as a flexible model l Mandatory procedure on a contractual basis – Part of domain name registration terms and conditions F Comp. UDRP contractual hierachy: Registrant---Registrar---ICANN l Efficient (quick results at moderate costs) – Direct enforcement F Transfer – or cancellation (recovery of costs? ) Limited scope and streamlined procedure F Written (online) procedure F Single exchange of pleadings F Deadlines – Blocking domain name transfers during the procedure
UDRP as a flexible model l Due process safeguards – Preserve recourse to national courts of justice F Facilitates acceptance • UDRP: less than 1% of all decisions contested – Neutrality F Independent of domain name registration and administration F Impartial and independent decision-makers • WIPO: 400 Panelists from 50 countries F Reasoned – Notice F All – decisions, available to the public possible means (Whois!) Burden of proof on Complainant
UDRP as a flexible model l Adjustable elements, e. g. : – Trademarks only or also other identifiers? F Trade names, personal names, geographical indications, . . . F Country names, names and abbreviations of IGOs – Local/regional rights only or also “foreign” rights? F Factor i. a. : “Nexus” requirement for domain name registration? – Restricted to bad faith registration and/or use F Or any infringement of IP right?
UDRP as a flexible model l Adjustable elements, e. g. : – Procedure F Language(s) F Number, nationality and qualification of Panelists F Local/regional and international dispute resolution providers F Fees F Combine with mediation element l Balance: – – IP owners’ interest in uniformity and possibility of consolidating complaints against the same dn holder Need for adaptations to local environment
WIPO cc. TLD Experience l Center: Dispute Resolution Provider for 44 cc. TLDs – – – initial period: smaller (. sh) or “de facto” g. TLDs (. tv) then: more established TLDs (. au, . ie, . mx, . nl, . ch, . fr) 267 cases (30 June 2005) F 156 in favor of complainant (mostly transfer) F 21 dismissed F 66 terminated (mostly settled) F 24 pending
WIPO cc. TLD Experience l Types of Policies: – UDRP: 30 F. ag, . am, . as, . 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 F. ae, – Other administrative procedure (UDRP-inspired): 4 F. ch, – . au, . ie, . ir, . mx, . tm, . ws. li, . fr, . re Arbitration: 4 F. ac, . nl, . pl, . sh
WIPO cc. TLD Experience l l WIPO cc. TLD database – Links to the websites of 243 cc. TLDs – Availability of registration agreement? – Existence of WHOIS service? – Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures? We are grateful for receving your updates – arbiter. mail@wipo. int
Further Information l Web Site: – l Mailing lists – l http: //arbiter. wipo. int/subscribe/all. html E-mail: – – arbiter. mail@wipo. int christian. wichard@wipo. int
- Slides: 22