Addressing Infringement: Developments in Content Regulation in the US and the DNS

2020 ◽  
pp. 630-646
Author(s):  
Annemarie Bridy
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Protocol Stack ◽  
Domain Name System ◽  
Application Layer ◽  
Domain Names ◽  
The Us ◽  
Content Regulation

The reach of privately ordered online content regulation is wide and deepening. It is deepening with reference to the internet’s protocol stack, migrating downward from the application layer into the network’s technical infrastructure, specifically, the Domain Name System (DNS). This chapter explores the recent expansion of intellectual property enforcement in the DNS, with a focus on associated due process and expressive harms. It begins with a technical explanation of the operation and governance of the DNS. It goes on to discuss existing and proposed alternative dispute resolution (ADR) regimes for resolving intellectual property complaints involving domain names. In doing so, it compares the long-running Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) for adjudicating trademark cybersquatting claims to newer ADR programmes targeting copyright infringement on websites underlying domain names.

scholarly journals SZANSE ARBITRAŻU W ROZWIĄZYWANIU SPORÓW NA TLE DOMEN INTERNETOWYCH

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 171
Author(s):  
Lavinia Brancus-Cieślak
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Uniform Domain ◽  
Domain Name ◽  
Legal Validity ◽  
Domain Names ◽  
Civil Court ◽  
Unjustified Enrichment

The Chances of the Arbitration in the Solutions of Disputes Regarding Internet Domain NamesSummaryThe paper deals with the Polish alternative dispute resolution (ADR) for internet domain names, which was introduced in January 2003 together with the establishment of a special Court of Arbitration. The Court acts within the Polish Chamber of Informatics, Technology and Telecommunication and it is based on a procedure drawn upon the well known UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy). The latter is actually applied by the main international organizations, e. g. such as Worldwide Intellectual Property Organisation.The analysis focuses on the main procedural issues, such as type of conflicts that can be an object of the court examination, claims to be raised by the plaintiff, legal validity of the verdicts. Similarly to UDRP, the Polish proceedings provide only to the domain name’s cancellation or its transfer for the benefit of the entitled person. The decision rendered by the Court acquires its full juridical force only after the ascertainment of its enforceability by an ordinary civil court. This means, that theoretically each proceedings concluded with a decision of the Court of Arbitration, should be followed by a compulsory formal examination in front of an ordinary court. Due to this, the Polish ADR seems to bring more juridical safety than the above-mentioned UDRP, yet the proceedings might be in practice protracted. In addition, such „enforced” decision would possess validity in law, in respect of the establishment of all facts, which could be further used as a ground to potential claims for damages or unjustified enrichment. 

scholarly journals Perlindungan Pemilik Rahasia Dagang Dalam Perjanjian Waralaba

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anik Tri Haryani
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Trade Secret ◽  
Trade Secrets ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Legal Consequences ◽  
Research Show

Tight business competition requires creativity for entrepreneurs to stay competitive by seeking new breakthroughs in developing their businesses. Many franchise models are chosen to develop businesses. One of the criteria for franchising is the Intellectual Property Rights that have been registered including trade secrets. The purpose of this study is to examine the legal protection of trade secret owners in a franchise agreement, and legal consequences if there is a violation of trade secrets in the franchise agreement. The method used in this study is juridical normative with a law approach and conceptual approach. The results of the research show that the protection of trade secrets in the franchise agreement can be done by making an agreement which contains a confidential information, non disclosure agreement clause, a non compete agreement as well as a non solicitation agreement clause. Legal consequences in the event of a violation of trade secrets in the franchise agreement can be prosecuted civilly by paying compensation through a lawsuit to court or can be resolved through arbitration or alternative dispute resolution. In addition, it can also be prosecuted according to Article 17 paragraph (1) of Law Number 30 of 2000 concerning Trade Secrets with the penalty of imprisonment of a maximum of two years and a maximum fine of three hundred million rupiah.

scholarly journals PERBANDINGAN PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA MEREK BERDASARKAN UNDANG-UNDANG MEREK NOMOR 20 TAHUN 2016 TENTANG MEREK DAN INDIKASI GEOGRAFIS JO. UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 30 TAHUN 1999 TENTANG ARBITRASE DAN ALTERNATIF PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA DENGAN WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPER

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shelly Kurniawan
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
World Intellectual Property Organization ◽  
The World

Dispute resolution does not only have to go through court, it can also resolve by alternative dispute resolution. Alternative dispute resolution regulated in Indonesia through Act Number 30 of 1999 concerning Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution that more diverse than alternative dispute resolution provided by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) through the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre. Alternative dispute resolution in Indonesia can be in consultation, mediation, negotiation, conciliation, arbitration, and expert determination. The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre at least provides four option for the alternative dispute resolution, namely mediation, arbitration, expedited arbitration, and expert determination. This research is to compare the alternative dispute resolution in marks dispute resolution jo. the act of alternative dispute resolution and alternative dispute resolution on WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre. Only expedited arbitration that is not explicitly regulated in Act Number 30 of 1999 concerning Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution, but there is provisions that resemble to expedited arbitration, i.e. a sole arbiter

48. Litigation

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Bently ◽  
B. Sherman ◽  
D. Gangjee ◽  
P. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Burden Of Proof

This chapter introduces some of the more important aspects of intellectual property litigation. It begins by considering who can bring proceedings and who can be sued with respect to infringement before discussing how evidence is obtained and preserved, with particular reference to disclosure orders and search orders. In addition, the chapter looks at presumptions that alter the normal burden of proof; unjustified threats of infringement; special courts and tribunals that deal with the technical nature of intellectual property litigation; parallel proceedings and the problems that they raise; the use of experts in litigation; and jurisdictional issues and conflicts of law. Finally, it examines alternative dispute resolution as an approach to resolving disputes concerning intellectual property.

scholarly journals The Adoption of International Arbitration as the Preferred ADR Process in the Resolution of International Intellectual Property Disputes

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 41-62
Author(s):  
David Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Property Law ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Cost Efficiencies

Abstract This article, which is intended for arbitration practitioners, demonstrates that international arbitration as a subset of the field of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) offers a useful toolkit for the expeditious resolution of international intellectual property law disputes. The article demonstrates how the theory and practice of international arbitration is particularly well poised to address some of the specific considerations and requirements of paramount concern to the international intellectual property lawyers and their clients. The article will explain how the inherent features of the international arbitration legal landscape combine to indicate that it should be considered as the preferred method of ADR and explain how each of these features can provide both time and cost efficiencies. The article will identify the legal reasoning behind the benefits inherent to choosing international arbitration and will also address those circumstances when international arbitration may be precluded or otherwise considered unsuitable for intellectual property matters. The article examines several distinct benefits that international arbitration uniquely offers to international intellectual property law users and highlights some areas of the field that require additional caution.

Labour Law

Japanese Law ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 405-430
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Oda
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Second World War ◽  
World War ◽  
Labour Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
Second World

Basic labour laws were introduced into Japan after the Second World War from the US. A new law—Labour Contract Law—was enacted in 2007. This law more or less codifies the existing case law. A new alternative dispute resolution (ADR) system for employment disputes was introduced.

Intersections Between Intellectual Property and Dispute Resolution

2021 ◽  
pp. 221-244
Author(s):  
Althaf Marsoof
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Broad Spectrum ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Practical Significance ◽  
Important Place ◽  
Natural Justice ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Interim Measures

Dispute resolution takes an important place within the intellectual property (IP) framework. This chapter explores the intersection between the two and highlights some of the key challenges and issues that have emerged with respect to IP dispute resolution. By focusing on both civil adjudication and alternative dispute resolution (ADR), the chapter seeks to inspire research in a broad spectrum of topics of practical significance. In the context of civil adjudication, the chapter focuses on natural justice and proportionality, which are fundamental principles of procedural law that have gained a renewed interest in recent times, especially with regard to IP enforcement. In the context of ADR, the chapter focuses on the issue of arbitrability and interim measures, which are not new concerns but continue to pose challenges for IP-related ADR.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document