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.

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 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. 

Ripensare gli indicatori per le politiche per l’innovazione attraverso il Design-thinking

2021 ◽  
pp. 149-161
Author(s):  
Mauro Lombardi
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Implementation Process ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Global Order ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
Multi Stakeholder ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
Systemic View

The final chapter contains the proposal to rethink the policies for innovation based on the approach defined Design thinking. Particularly important is the introduction of concepts such as global order parameters, referring to a systemic view of the techno-economic dynamics, and of a complementary methodology, called Agile. Based on the proposed framework, the decision-making space of different actors (private, public) in pursuing objectives at different levels is then analyzed. In this way a multi-level and multi-stakeholder decision making process can be enriched through a multiplicity of indicators in order to timely verify the efficiency of implementation process.

scholarly journals The Failure of the Court to Protect Consumers: A Review of Consumer Dispute Resolution in Indonesia

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Syamsudin
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Empirical Data ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Public Trust ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Entire System ◽  
The Public

Abstract Indonesia needs strong measures to protect its consumers, which leads to the creation of the Consumer Dispute Settlement Agency (BPSK) as an arbiter to settle disputes between consumers and businesses efficiently. The Indonesian Supreme Court (MARI) has set aside an alarming number of BPSK arbitral awards, putting the entire system in jeopardy. The aims of this study are to examine the empirical data on MARI’s decisions in setting aside arbitral awards and analyse their decision-making process. This research shows how MARI has been interpreting the statue promulgating the BPSK very narrowly. The result of MARI’s interpretation of the law has deep implications for consumer protection in Indonesia, namely that the public trust in the enforcement of Consumer Protection Law by BPSK has been severely diminishing, leaving consumers without meaningful access to justice or protection of their rights.

Icann’S New gTLD Program

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torsten Bettinger ◽  
Mike Rodenbaugh
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Domain Name System ◽  
Domain Name ◽  
Domain Names ◽  
The World ◽  
Stakeholder Model ◽  
Business Entities ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Multi Stakeholder

Since its creation in 1998, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has been responsible for ensuring free trade and marketplace competition in the sale and regulation of domain names, as well as overseeing the stability of the Domain Name System (DNS) and the creation of consistent, functional policies. Therefore, its responsibilities include assessing when, and to what degree, additional generic top-level domains (gTLDs) are needed in order to ensure the proper functioning of the DNS. In order to make such a determination, ICANN relied on the input of interested Internet stakeholders as mandated through its multi-stakeholder model, which involves interested business entities, individuals, and governments from around the world.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document