Don't Thing but Look

2009 ◽  
pp. 177-190
Author(s):  
Konstantinos Komaitis
Keyword(s):  
Electronic Commerce ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Regulatory Framework ◽  
Uniform Domain ◽  
Domain Name ◽  
Domain Names ◽  
The Past ◽  
Electronic Transactions

Over the past decade, electronic commerce has expanded and has provided new ways of conducting businesses in a brand new environment. Lately u-commerce seems to be pioneering the field of electronic transactions. Where ‘u’ stands for ubiquitous, unison, unique and universal, u-commerce offers the opportunity to users to conduct business everywhere and at any given moment in time. The simplicity of u-commerce transactions makes the issue of domain names more relevant than ever before. This chapter examines the procedural unfairness of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) in an effort to demonstrate that the ‘regulatory’ framework surrounding domain names does not respect their technological necessity.

Domain Name Law And Practice

2015 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Brand Strategy ◽  
Uniform Domain ◽  
Application Process ◽  
Domain Name ◽  
Domain Names ◽  
Protection Mechanisms ◽  
Trade Mark Law ◽  
And Function

An established authority in the field, this work provides comprehensive analysis of the law and practice relating to internet domain names at an international level, combined with a detailed survey of the 36 most important domain name jurisdictions worldwide, including the US, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Japan, China, Singapore, Russia, Canada, and Australia, and new chapters on Israel, Mexico, South Korea, Brazil, Colombia, Portugal, and South Africa. The survey includes extensive country-by-country analysis of how domain names relate to existing trade mark law, and upon the developing case law in the field, as well as the alternative dispute resolution procedures. In its second edition, this work analyses, in depth, key developments in the field including ICANN's new gTLD program. The program, introducing more than 700 new top-level domains, will have far-reaching consequences for brand name industries worldwide and for usage of the internet. The complicated application process is considered in detail as well as filing and review procedures, the delegation process, the role and function of the Trademark Clearing House and the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Services, dispute resolution, and new rights protection mechanisms. Other developments covered include new registration processes such as the use of privacy and proxy services, as well as the expansion of the scope of internationalized domain names, including the addition of a number of generic top-level domains such as “.tel” and “.travel”. Also considered are developments relating to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) in terms of the nature of cases seen under the Policy and the number of cases filed, as well as the recent paperless e-UDRP initiative. The Uniform Rapid Suspension System, working alongside the UDRP in the new gTLD space, is also discussed in a new chapter on this process. Giving detailed information about the registration of domain names at national, regional and international levels, analysis of the dispute resolution processes at each of those levels, and strategic guidance on how to manage domain names as part of an overall brand strategy, this leading work in international domain name law is essential reading for practitioners in the field.

scholarly journals Are We Getting Good Decisions by Top - Level Domain Name Dispute Resolution Providers?

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pavel Loutocký
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Unique Solution ◽  
Future Development ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Uniform Domain ◽  
Domain Name ◽  
Domain Names ◽  
Process Comparison ◽  
Multi Stakeholder

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has offered unique solution to deal with disputes regarding the registration of internet domain names (so called trademark dilemma) in 1999. Uniform domain name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) delimits procedural rules to solve such disputes and to create non – binding decision (binding between involved parties) which approves / rejects the transfer of the domain name to new (trademark) owner.This paper has to focus on the question whether we are getting good decisions or the decisions in similar cases are decided more or less randomly. It is necessary to focus on such question also because of the fact that ICANN is planned to be transferred to the global multi - stakeholder community this year. Is the decision making process ready for such a big change or is it easily suggestible? To try to answer this question it will be necessary to go through the history and activities of ICANN and to focus mainly on UDRP process. Comparison of the convenient trademark dilemma cases or statistics will try to show defects of the rules, which are pointing at problems not only recently but already for quite a long time.The conclusion then is to articulate possible future development and to offer some recommendations of what is necessary to pay attention to.

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 EXTRAJUDICIAL REMEDIES FOR THE RIGHT TO A DOMAIN NAME

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ян Коваленко
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
World Intellectual Property Organization ◽  
Uniform Domain ◽  
Domain Name ◽  
Specific Domain ◽  
Domain Names ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
The World ◽  
The Right ◽  
A Company

Today, each member of the business industry in one way or another presents his company, his product or services he provides on the World Wide Web. The main purpose of the company in the internet is to create and use its own website to provide information about their product and to find a potential buyer, as well as demonstrate their advantages and how they differ from their competitors. The main purpose of registeringa specific «domain name» is to create favorable (convenient) conditions for the buyer who wanted to get acquainted with the company or its range. After all, if a domain name is associatively similar to the name of an individual company, then it will be much easier for the buyer to find the website of such a company than through a search using search engines.Business representatives do not always succeed, especially if the name (trademark, brand) of the company is widely known, or if such a company has become a «victim» of unfair competition. This creates controversy over which parties are interested in resolving as quickly and cheaply as possible.This is greatly facilitated by the work of the World Intellectual Property Organization and a number of documents, among which the leading are «Principles for Dispute Resolution on Identical Domain Names» and «Principles of Uniform Rules for Dispute Resolution on Domain Names» (UDRP), adopted by ICANN. However, their analysis, as well as the analysis of law enforcement practice, allow us to speak not only about the effectiveness, but also about certain shortcomings of the proposed ICANN procedure for resolving disputes over domain names, which entail ambiguous dispute resolution practices.The analysis of the regulation of protection of rights to the domain name is carried out with the prescriptions of the «Principles for the resolution of disputes about the same domain names» and the «Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Rules» (UDRP) adopted by ICANN. An attempt is made to highlight the advantages and disadvantages of an out-of-court procedure for resolving disputes over domain names and suggested possible ways to improve such a system in Ukraine. 

The Challenge of the Law to Electronic Commerce

2011 ◽  
pp. 383-410
Author(s):  
Severine Dusollier ◽  
Laetitia Rolin Jacquemyns
Keyword(s):  
Electronic Commerce ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
New Products ◽  
Regulatory Framework ◽  
Electronic Marketplace ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Legislative Action ◽  
Regulatory Approach ◽  
Rules Of The Game

In the Communication on Electronic Commerce of 19971 , the European Commission stressed that “in order to allow electronic commerce operators to reap the full benefits of the Single Market, it is essential to avoid regulatory inconsistencies and to ensure a coherent legal and regulatory framework for electronic commerce.” The electronic marketplace has a crucial need to know “the rules of the game”2 in order to carry out electronic commerce. Therefore, the regulatory framework has to be clear, stable and predictable, both to enable e-commerce operators to face all challenges raised by the development of new products and services and to ensure the trust and confidence of consumers in the new electronic supermarket. These are the main objectives of the legislative action of the European Commission3 which has, in recent years, laid the foundations for a consistent setting of the legal scene for electronic commerce in Europe. It is worth recalling that the action of the Commission has been and should be guided by the key principles of the EC Treaty, particularly by the concern for the Internal Market and the enhancement of the circulation of products and services. A clear consequence is that any regulatory intervention of the Commission should be directed to a further harmonization or clarification of the existing rules in order to lift the uncertainties and discrepancies in national policies which might impede the free circulation of electronic goods and services. Other key concerns of the European Commission are to refrain from over-regulating electronic markets and businesses and to remain open to a self-regulatory approach and alternative dispute resolution. This last guideline is particularly followed in the recent Draft Directive on electronic commerce4 .

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torsten Bettinger ◽  
Allegra Waddell
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Uniform Domain ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Domain Name ◽  
International Impact ◽  
The Everyday ◽  
Use Of The Internet ◽  
A Company

As worldwide use of the Internet has expanded, the importance of domain name selection and use has increased exponentially for brand owners and professional domain name registrants alike. The terms ‘cybersquatting’ and ‘pay-per-click advertising’ have become commonplace in the everyday vernacular. Although domain name law is, in many respects, similar to more traditional trademark and intellectual property law, many countries are still developing practices for handling disputes over Internet space. Given the international impact of domain name use, and the myriad jurisdictional problems concerning both venue and enforcement of judgments, domain name disputes present a number of challenges to nationally-based court systems. Domain name registration generally follows a ‘first-come, first-served’ model, thus potentially leaving trademark owners open to abusive registrations on behalf of cybersquatters and in some cases putting a company in the difficult position of paying ‘ransom’ to a domain name holder who registered the company’s trademark or brand in a domain.

SINKRONISASI PENGATURAN NAMA DOMAIN DAN HAK MEREK DI INDONESIA

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 17
Author(s):  
Asawati Nugrahani ◽  
Albertus Sentot Sudarwanto
Keyword(s):  
System Optimization ◽  
Geographical Indications ◽  
First Principle ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Domain Name ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
Domain Names ◽  
Electronic Transactions

<p><strong>Abstract</strong></p><p>This study discusses the synchronization of domain name and Trademark regulation in Indonesia. This</p><p>research is normative legal research is prescriptive to vertical and horizontal level of synchronization. The approach used in this legal research is the statue approach and the conceptual approach (conseptual</p><p>approach). The source of research can be distinguished to be a source of research in the form of primary</p><p>legal materials in the form of Law No. 20 of 2016 on Trademarks and Geographical Indications, Law Number 11 Year 2008 juncto 19 Year 2016 on Information and Electronic Transactions and its regulations below.</p><p>Secondary legal material from the doctrines of jurists, and other non-legal materials. The results showed</p><p>that both regulation have not been there any match between one another. First, in terms of registration</p><p>of the first principle to the legal file of the Trademark and the principle of domain name registration is first file first serve is a different principle so that many disputes after the domain name obtained. Second, interms of ownership, domain names obtained on lease are not the same objects as Trademarks so they</p><p>can not be equalized. Sync can be done by adding settings on whois system optimization and revising</p><p>the domain name law.</p><p><strong>Keywords: </strong>Domain name, Trademark, legal concept</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p><strong>Abstrak</strong></p><p>Penelitian ini membahas tentang sinkronisasi pengaturan nama domain dan hak merek di Indonesia.</p><p>Penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif bersifat preskriptif terhadap taraf sinkronisasi vertikal</p><p>dan horizontal. Pendekatan yang digunakan dalam penelitian hukum ini adalah pendekatan undangundang</p><p>(statue approach) dan pendekatan konseptual (conseptual approach). Sumber penelitian dapat</p><p>dibedakan menjadi sumber penelitian yang berupa bahan hukum primer berupa Undang –Undang Nomor</p><p>20 Tahun 2016 tentang Merek dan Indikasi Geografis , Undang- Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 juncto 19</p><p>Tahun 2016 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik beserta peraturan- peraturan dibawahnya. Bahan</p><p>hukum sekunder dari doktrin-doktrin para ahli hukum, dan bahan non-hukum lainnya. Hasil penelitian</p><p>menunjukkan bahwa kedua pengaturan tersebut belum terdapat adanya kesesuaian antara satu dengan</p><p>yang lainnya. Pertama, dilihat dari segi pendaftarannya asas first to file hukum merek dan asas pendaftaran nama domain yaitu first file first serve merupakan asas yang berbeda sehingga dapat banyak sengketa setelah nama domain didapatkan. Kedua, dilihat dari kepemilikannya, nama domain didapatkan secara sewa bukan merupakan objek yang sama dengan merek sehingga keduanya tidak dapat dipersamakan. Sinkronisasi dapat dilakukan dengan menambahkan pengaturan mengenai optimaliasi sitem whois dan merevisi undang- undang nama domain.</p><p><strong>Kata Kunci : </strong>nama domain, merek, sinkronisasi</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document