Icann’s Generic Top Level Domain Names Dispute Resolution

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the authority that is administering the implementation of Internet’s domain name system. ICANN has proposed to hold its second public meeting of the year on June 20th, 2011.

ICANN could approve its proposed program to introduce an unlimited number of new generic top-level domain names (gTLD). These gTLDs are in great demand among world reputed brands and trademarks owners. The new gTLDs would allow such brand and trademark owners to register their brands and trademarks as the domain name.

Naturally, these GTLDs are in great demand and there would be attempts to squat famous brands and trademarks of others. ICANN would stringently deal with such attempts by allotting the GTLDs to only “Bonafide Applicants” after verifying their “Claims”, informs Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based IP and ICT law firm Perry4Law and a Neutral at World Intellectual Property Organisation’s (WIPO) Arbitration Centre.

Earlier WIPO had informed that cyber squatting cases are on rise. This proves that well known brands and trademarks are at risk of being misappropriated by dubious individuals and organisations.

The present allotment of GTLD would also face similar problems if an effective “Pre Screening Procedure” along with “Reasonably High Application Fee” is not prescribed by ICANN, suggests Dalal. ICANN and WIPO would also be required to “Streamline” their Dispute Resolution Services keeping in mind the recent Technological Advances, suggests Dalal.

Let us see how ICANN, WIPO and similar organisations would deal with the issues of cyber squatting, brand violations and trademark violations in the near future.

Entertainment And Media Industry Disputes Resolutions

Entertainment and media industry has to invest a lot to create commercial contents. This also necessitates the protection of such digital contents in both online and offline environment. Although creation of digital contents requires lots of efforts, money and manpower yet its violation and misuse requires little effort and expenditure. This is the reason why there are lots of entertainment, media and film industry related disputes these days.

A very strange trend in the Asian countries, especially India, regarding entertainment, media and film industry related disputes is that they are essentially resolved through traditional litigation methods. There is hardly any use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) or online dispute resolution (ODR) methods to resolve such disputes.

Even more bizarre is the fact that such disputes are seldom taken to International level, informs Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based IP and ICT law firm Perry4Law and a Neutral at World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Centre. Although WIPO has a dedicated mechanism to resolve Entertainment and Film Industry related Disputes yet Asian Countries are mostly “Respondents” there, inform Dalal.

This shows that Asian countries are not utilising international platforms of organisations like WIPO for getting their disputes resolved. This is a trend that needs to be changed as use of ADR and ODR is certainly “More Beneficial” for Entertainment, Media and Film Industry, suggests Dalal.

However, despite all assurances, entertainment, media and film industry would not be encouraged to approach international platforms in the absence of national level participations. Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) has opened a techno legal ODR platform where ADR and ODR is used for resolving all sorts of commercial and civil disputes that can be resolved using ADR and ODR.

With national initiatives becoming popular and frequently used, international platforms may also be approached later on. However, collaboration between national and international ADR and ODR institutions is need of the hour to achieve that objective.

Asian Film And Entertainment Industry And WIPO Dispute Resolution

Asian film industry engages in lots of disputes pertaining to intellectual property rights (IPRs) issues. Surprisingly, Asian companies prefer to utilise tradition litigations methods instead of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) or online dispute resolution (ODR).

Although the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) has a dedicated centre known as WIPO Mediation and Expedited Arbitration for Film and Media yet Asian countries are shy to use such international platforms.

Instead they prefer to approach the courts to get their disputes resolved. Further, a majority of Asian companies are respondents at such dispute resolution platforms. So where lies the problem?

According to Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based IP and ICT law firm Perry4Law and a Neutral at WIPO’s Arbitration and Mediation Centre, this may be due to two reasons. Firstly, a majority of Respondents may be defending themselves against the Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) violations cases. Secondly, Asian Companies may not be effectively using the ADR and ODR Dispute Resolution Services of International Organisations and Institutions, informs Dalal.

This is very surprising as use of ADR and ODR is definitely more beneficial for these companies. However, they still prefer the litigation route than the ADR and ODR route.

According to Dalal, a great deal of ADR and ODR Disputes are “Referred” by Law Firms and Practicing Legal Professionals. They incorporate suitable “ADR and ODR Clauses” in the Technology Agreements, Film and entertainment related Agreements, etc. If these Firms and Professionals do not incorporate proper Arbitration Clause, a Dispute can never reach to International Organisations and would land up in a Court of Law, informs Dalal.

It seems the need to collaborate with the locals seems to be the success formula. Local disputes are generally settled using local means and it requires great persuasion an awareness to utilise the services of international organisations in this regard.

WIPO Patent Committee Discussed Tech Transfer And Public Health

Due to some technical problem, our article on similar topic has not appeared in Google news. We are reposting it here for our readers. Any inconvenience in this regard is highly regretted.

The article pertains to initiatives undertaken in the direction of Patents laws by WIPO Patent Committee. These initiatives are very important for both developed and developing countries. However, no consensus has been established in this regard so far.

World intellectual property organisation (WIPO) is the premier international organisation regarding intellectual property rights (IPRs). The sixteenth session of the WIPO’s Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP) was recently conducted from 16th to 29th May, 2011.

The SCP discussed various far reaching issues like patents and public health, technology transfer, and exceptions and limitations to patents. Although these issues are most arguable ones yet some progress has been shown in this session of SCP.

Issues like Pharmaceuticals and Public Health, Data Exclusivity, Technology Transfer, etc are still to be resolved at the International Level, informs Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based IP and ICT Law Firm Perry4Law and a Panelist at WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre. We welcome the latest effort of SCP and consider it as the beginning of Future Negotiations, says Dalal.

Developing nations are still struggling to deal with technological issues and technology transfer is a must to successfully meet them. While developing countries are insisting upon effective technology transfers yet developed countries are not that enthusiastic regarding the same.

Similarly, the data exclusivity issues are also a bone of contention. European Union and developed countries are insisting upon the same while it is not covered by TRIPS Agreement.

Let us see how future negotiations in these crucial fields would take a shape that can be beneficial for both developed and developing countries.

WIPO Patent Committee Considered Public Health And Tech Transfer

World intellectual property organisation (WIPO) is the premier international organisation regarding intellectual property rights (IPRs). The sixteenth session of the WIPO’s Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP) was recently conducted from 16th to 29th May, 2011.

The SCP discussed various far reaching issues like patents and public health, technology transfer, and exceptions and limitations to patents. Although these issues are most arguable ones yet some progress has been shown in this session of SCP.

Issues like Pharmaceuticals and Public Health, Data Exclusivity, Technology Transfer, etc are still to be resolved at the International Level, informs Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based IP and ICT Law Firm Perry4Law and a Panelist at WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre. We welcome the latest effort of SCP and consider it as the beginning of Future Negotiations, says Dalal.

Developing nations are still struggling to deal with technological issues and technology transfer is a must to successfully meet them. While developing countries are insisting upon effective technology transfers yet developed countries are not that enthusiastic regarding the same.

Similarly, the data exclusivity issues are also a bone of contention. European Union and developed countries are insisting upon the same while it is not covered by TRIPS Agreement.

Let us see how future negotiations in these crucial fields would take a shape that can be beneficial for both developed and developing countries.

Should Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Be Changed?

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has formulated the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) long before. It has stood the test of the time. However, with the passage of time, new challenges and issues have also arisen.

This has forced the GNSO Council to consider a revision of UDRP norms. The UDRP has not been reviewed by the GNSO Council since its inception. ICANN has come up with a preliminary issue report on the current state of UDRP. This report is seeking inputs from UDRP specialists and public at large for the desirability to bring necessary changes in the UDRP policy.

According to Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based IP and ICT Law firm Perry4Law and a Panelist at WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre, ICANN has been taking many pro active steps for streamlining the Domain Name world. For instance, recently ICANN and INTERPOL have agreed to work in the direction of Securing Internet, informs Dalal. Now a Preliminary Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP has been released by ICANN to gather popular opinions of Stakeholders, informs Dalal.

There is opinion for both in favour of and against such revision. WIPO’s Erik Wilbers is not in favour of bringing changes in the present UDRP scheme. In fact, WIPO has written a letter to ICANN advising it against revising the UDRP. WIPO argues that the UDRP has proven to be flexible and fair; that this is in any event the wrong time to revise it given expansion of the domain name system and introduction of new rights-protection mechanisms; that review would probably end up overburdening the UDRP; and that any review should be preceded by an analysis of cybersquatting.

As far as India is concerned, technological issues of IPRs in India are still not popular. For instance, we do not have a Dedicated Law on Domain Name Protection in India, informs Dalal. Domain Name Protection in India is needed and in order to do so we need a Dedicated Domain Name Law, suggests Dalal. It would be better if India makes its choice and opinion regarding the Report very clear opines Dalal.

While none can doubt that UDRP is far from perfect yet whether it must be amended or not have to be decided only after analysing the opinions of both sides.

WIPO Must Strengthen Its Technology Dispute Resolution Services

World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) is a well known name in the fields of intellectual property rights (IPRs) and dispute resolution. WIPO has its own Arbitration and Mediation Centre (AMC) that provides world renowned dispute resolution services.

WIPO also provides world class domain name dispute resolution services. Parties to the dispute can draw upon a growing database of over 1,500 independent WIPO arbitrators, mediators and experts from 70 countries. The candidates on the WIPO List of Neutrals range from seasoned dispute resolution generalists to highly specialized practitioners and experts covering the entire legal and technical spectrum of intellectual property. Their geographical diversity suits the international character of many disputes. The general WIPO List of Neutrals is not made available as such to the public. However, the WIPO Center does publish its specific list of WIPO Domain Name Panelists.

One area that WIPO must pay special attention is Dispute Resolution of Cross Border Technology Transactions and E-Commerce Disputes, suggests Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based IP and ICT law firm Perry4Law and a Neutral at WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre. The future disputes would be Techno Legal in nature and WIPO must be well prepared to deal with the same, suggests Dalal.

Although WIPO is world renowned for its domain name dispute resolution services yet in areas like cyber law disputes, cyber forensics disputes, e-discovery related disputes, etc, WIPO is still establishing itself.

WIPO must establish a “Separate and Dedicated List” of Panelists who can manage the Techno Legal Disputes in an effective manner, suggests Dalal. This List must be made Public so that the expertise of Panelists of WIPO is well known in advance, suggests Dalal.

This seems to be a good suggestion that WIPO must seriously consider. Its present list of domain name specialists is not reflective enough upon its true capabilities. With growing competition from other international institutions and organisations like European Union (EU), United Nationals Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), etc, WIPO cannot afford to take it lightly.

Even at the national level, ODR services providers like Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) have been working hard in his regard. In fact, Perry4Law and PTLB have recently provided the first Technology Dispute Resolution Policy of India and ODR Policy of India.

Bilateral agreements between various countries may also be beneficial in this regard. EU India has lots in common in this regard and we must engage in an EU India ODR Development Dialogue, suggests Dalal. Let us see how the techno legal ADR and ODR dispute resolution services would take a shape in the future.

Perry4Law And PTLB Suggested ODR Policy Of India

Online dispute resolution (ODR) and technology dispute resolution (TDR) are issues that have not been explored much by India. Even alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism has also not been explored to the maximum possible extent in India.

Further, there are very few ADR and ODR service providers in India. However, when it comes to technology dispute resolution and techno legal dispute resolution services, there are only handfuls of ODR service providers in India.

Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) are providing the exclusive techno legal ODR and technology dispute resolution services in India. However, both ODR and Technology Dispute Resolution requires a National Policy for effective use in India, says Praveen Dalal, managing partner of Perry4Law and leading techno legal expert of India.

Presently India has no policy in this regard. Realising the same, Perry4Law and PTLB have provided the exclusive Technology Dispute Resolution Policy of India, informs Dalal.

The policy covers issues like legal standards of ODR, international harmonisation of ODR, cross border technology dispute resolution, cross border e-commerce dispute resolution, etc.

The policy has also suggested bringing suitable amendments in the arbitration and conciliation act 1996 that is the sole ADR law of India.

The policy has arranged and assembled all the possible information that Perry4Law and PTLB have shared in this regard so that individuals and international organisations like United Nations, United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), World Trade Organisation (WTO), etc can be benefited from the same.

Let us hope the Law Ministry of India in general and international organisations like UN, UNCITRAL, WIPO, WTO, etc would consider the same while formulating national and international policies, norms and regulations.

Cyber Squatting Has Increased Significantly Says WIPO

Cybersquatting, also known as domain squatting, is a process where the goodwill of a famous brand is used in bad faith to make profit out of the same. In this process domain name carrying the name of famous brands are deliberately registered so that they can be resold to the trademark owners subsequently at an exorbitant amount.

As far as India is concerned, we have no domain name protection law in India. Cybersquatting cases are decided under the Indian Trademark Act, 1999. This situation requires to be changed as soon as possible. As far as international community is concerned, it has separate mechanisms for dealing with trademark disputes and cybersquatting cases. Internationally both out of court settlements and legal proceeding are used to solve the growing cybersquatting cases.

World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) has recently announced that Cybersquatting has hit record level, informs Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based IP and ICT law firm Perry4Law. This trend would continue in future as well, suggests Dalal. In fact, Dispute Resolution in Cross Border Technology Transactions would be one of the areas that would emerge in the near future, predicts Dalal.

Cybersquatting cases are normally resolved using alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods like arbitration, mediation, etc. These days even the online dispute resolution (ODR) methods are used to resolve cybersquatting disputes. For instance, WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre is one of the leading centers of the world that resolve cybersquatting and domain name disputes using ODR mechanism.

One area that requires immediate attention of international community is harmonisation of dispute resolution protocols and procedures. For instance, international harmonisation of ODR is required that is presently governed by different sets of Rules and Procedures, suggests Dalal. Institutions like WIPO, United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), etc must think and work in this direction, suggests Dalal. We must also either amend the Indian Trademark Act, 1999 or enact a separate Cybersquatting Law of India, suggests Dalal.

For the time being, cybersquatting is going to stay. It is for us to decide how to fight this nuisance at national and international level.