rethinking domain name disputes resolujon in the era of ......jan 18, 2014 · rethinking domain...

ì

EmmanuelGILLET,PhD 2014ADNDRCConference

TeachingFellow,TheHongKongPolytechnicUniversity

RethinkingDomainNameDisputeResoluJonintheEraofNewgTLDs

KualaLumpur,18thJanuary2014

RethinkingDomainNameDisputesResoluJonintheEraofNewgTLDsè NotableProceduralIssuesinUDRP

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2014 Emmanuel GILLET

ìRethinkingDomainNameDisputesResoluJonintheEraofNewgTLDsè NotableProceduralIssuesinUDRP

Background. − On the 18 January 2014, the Malaysian branch of the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Center (ADNDRC) hold a conference entitled “Rethinking Domain Name Disputes Resolution in the Era of newgTLDs”. Summary. − Fifteen years after the UDRP was adopted, there has been an unprecedented increase of domain names resources. ICANN is in the process of liberalizing the creation of new top level domains. Furthermore, new technologies now allow the registration of internationalized domain names (IDNs). Resources will soon be almost endless and extremely varied (new TLDs + IDNs + IPV6). At the same time, one can question the effectiveness of the UDRP in achieving its goal: fighting cybersquatting. Indeed, in 70% of WIPO cases, disputed domain names are transferred to the claimant. An analysis of the UDRP case law and similar rules shows that the whole system has already evolved, thanks to the UDRP panelists (consolidation, re-filing, etc.) and the ccTLDs registries (mediation, appeal, reimbursement of legal fees, arbitration, etc.). However, good ideas are scattered like pieces of a puzzle. The whole system could be improved by i) giving Lady Justice the sword she is missing in domain names dispute resolution proceedings and ii) gathering all the good ideas together. Some of the arguments shared in this presentation are available in the following article: Emmanuel GILLET, “Procédures extrajudiciaires de règlement des litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine : quelles perspectives pour l’arbitrage ?”, Versailles International Business Law Review, 2013, No. 4, pp. 145-168.


ì

New“g”TLDS+IDNs+IPV6=

EndlesspossibiliJesforcybersquaWers



ì

1.TheFailureofDNDisputeResoluJonMechanisms2.SignificantProceduralEvoluJons3.GoingFurther4.GatheringGoodIdeasinOnePlace5.TowardsArbitraJon?



ì

1.TheFailureofDNDisputeResoluJonMechanisms


FighJngCybersqua_ng!


ì



StatementofAccount…


ì



≈40.000UDRPdecisions+ccTLDsrelateddecisions } 14years


ì



70%WIPODecisionsàTransfergranted

Source:wipo.int


ì



SuccessorFailure?


ì

SuccessorFailure.?


ì

SuccessorRethink.?


ì

2.SignificantProceduralEvoluJons2.1.ImprovementsMadebyPanelists2.2.ImprovementsMadebyRegistries



ì

2.SignificantProceduralEvoluJons2.1.ImprovementsMadebyPanelists2.1.1.Re-Filing(Samedomainname+SameparJes)CondiJons:“Arefiledcasemayonlybeacceptedinlimitedcircumstances.Thesecircumstances includewhen thecomplainantestablishes in thecomplaint thatrelevantnewacJonshaveoccurredsincetheoriginaldecision,orthatabreachofnaturaljusJceorofdueprocesshasoccurred,orthattherewasotherseriousmisconductintheoriginalcase(suchasperjuredevidence).Arefiledcomplaintwouldusuallyalsobeacceptedifitincludesnewlypresentedevidencethatwasreasonably unavailable to the complainant during the original case” (WIPOOverview2.0,para.4.4.,consensus).



ì

2.SignificantProceduralEvoluJons2.1.ImprovementsMadebyPanelists2.1.2.ConsolidaJonCondiJons:(i)thecomplainantseitherhaveaspecificcommongrievanceagainstthe respondent, or the respondent has engaged in common conduct that hasaffectedthecomplainants' individualrights inasimilar fashion; (ii) itwouldbeequitableandprocedurallyefficienttopermittheconsolidaJon;orinthecaseofcomplaints brought (whether or not filed by mulJple complainants) againstmore than one respondent, where (i) the domain names or the websites towhich they resolve are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidaJonwouldbefairandequitabletoallparJes(WIPOOverview2.0,para.4.1).



ì

2.SignificantProceduralEvoluJons2.2.ImprovementsMadebyRegistries2.2.1.MediaJon



ì

2.SignificantProceduralEvoluJons2.2.ImprovementsMadebyRegistries2.2.1.MediaJon


.UK

Source:Nom

inet.org.uk


ì

2.SignificantProceduralEvoluJons2.2.ImprovementsMadebyRegistries2.2.2.Appeal


.UK

Source:Nom

inet.org.uk


ì

2.SignificantProceduralEvoluJons2.2.ImprovementsMadebyRegistries

UDRPàccTLDsDRP

ccTLDsDRPàUDRP



ì

2.SignificantProceduralEvoluJons2.2.ImprovementsMadebyRegistries2.2.3.Fees



ì


UDRPandJusJce



ì


UDRPandJusJce

§  Blindfold§  Scale§  Sword



ì



NoswordàNoLegalriskNoLegalRiskàNodissuasionNoDissuasion/ThreatàNoJusJce


ì



1stconcepJon 2ndConcepJon

Eachpartypaysitsownfees Thelosingpartypaysthefees


ì



T. EISENBERG and G. P.MILLER, “The English Versus the AmericanRule on AWorneys Fees: An Empirical Study of Public CompanyContracts”,98CornellL.R.327


ì



Source:wipo.int


ì



WIPOExpeditedArbitraJonRules[.AC,.IO,.SH]ArJcle59“AwardofCostsofArbitraJon”(c)TheTribunalshall,subjecttoanyagreementoftheparJes,apporJonthecostsofarbitraJonandtheadministraJonfeesoftheCenterbetweentheparJesinthelightofallthecircumstancesandtheoutcomeofthearbitraJon.


ì

3.GoingFurther:ConsolidaJoninCasesofMulJpleTLDs


gTLDs ccTLDs NewTLDs

SheraWon.info CheraWon.be Sheraton.berlin

Sherraton.com SheraWton.za Sheraton.bzh

Etc. Etc. Etc.


ì

3.GoingFurther:ConsolidaJoninCasesofMulJpleTLDs


gTLDs ccTLDs NewTLDs

SheraWon.info CheraWon.be Sheraton.berlin

Sherraton.com SheraWton.za Sheraton.bzh

5differentprocedures+potenJally5disputeresoluJonproviders


ì

4.GatheringGoodIdeasinOnePlace



ìCurrentSituaJon


ìGoal


ì

5.TowardsArbitraJon?


UDRPandCo.≠ArbitraJon


ì

5.TowardsArbitraJon?


Advantages Risks ControllingtheRisks

NewYorkConvenJon(149signatories(1))

Expensive

Enforcementtorecoverthecosts

(evendamages)

Delay Fast-TrackArbitraJon(controllingJmeandcosts)

Possibilitytoappeal(3arbitrators)

Noneedtogotocourts

(1)18January2014


ì

Thankyou


email [email protected]

blog hWp://egillet.com


rethinking domain name disputes resolujon in the era of ......jan 18, 2014 · rethinking domain...

Documents