Alternative Dispute Resolution PDF

Beatrice Onica-Jarka
Alternative dispute resolution

- suport de curs -
EDITURA UNIVERSITII NICOLAE TITULESCU

BUCURETI
2016
Acest material este destinat uzului studenilor, forma de nvmnt la distan.

Coninutul cursului este proprietatea intelectual a autorului/autorilor; designul, machetarea i
transpunerea n format electronic aparin Departamentului de nvmnt la Distan al
Universitii Nicolae Titulescu din Bucureti.
Acest curs este destinat uzului individual. Este interzis multiplicarea, copierea sau
difuzarea coninutului sub orice form.
Acest manual a fost analizat si aprobat n edina Departamentului de Drept Public din data de 15
septembrie 2016.
UNIVERSITATEA NICOLAE TITULESCU DIN BUCURETI

DEPARTAMENTUL PENTRU NVMNTUL LA DISTAN
Beatrice Onica-Jarka
Alternative dispute resolution
Editura Universitii Nicolae Titulescu

Calea Vcreti, nr. 185, sector 4, Bucureti
Tel./fax: 0213309032/0213308606
Email: editura@univnt.ro
ISBN: 978-606-751-344-8
Course Objectives
This course is intended to provide the student with a general overview of the alternative
dispute resolutions system, with a focus on domain name dispute resolution.
Granted Abilities
This course will enable students to:
1. Understand fundamental notions such an alternative dispute resolution;
2. Identify various methods of dispute resolution such as negotiation, enquiry, arbitration,
mediation;
3. Understand the general rules governing domain names;
4. Gain knowledge of domain name dispute resolution policy, procedural rules and
jurisprudence.
As per the course sheet, the specific granted abilities are as follows:
Scientific knowledge of alternative dispute resolution methods;
Identify situations which could require an alternative dispute resolution method;
Understand the importance of domain names and of the specific rules governing the
domain name dispute resolution;
Develop the ability to understand and reconcile dissenting points of view;
Developing a judicial set of mind.
Resources
Compulsory Bibliography
Jurisprudence
- All relevant cases mentioned within the course.
Recommended Bibliography
1. Beatrice Onica Jarka, ARE THE DECISIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL BODIES IN

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) BASED ON THE UNIFORM DISPUTE
RESOLUTION POLICY (UDRP) FOR DOMAIN NAMES SUBJECT OF THE COURT
APPLICATION PROVIDED BY ARTICLE 364 ROMANIAN CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE? la
adresa de internet http://lexetscientia.univnt.ro/en/article/ARE-THE-DECISIONS-OF-THEINTERNATIONAL-BODIES-IN-ALTERNATIVE-DISPUTE-RESOLUTION-ADR-BASED-ONTHE-UNIFORM-DISPUTE-RESOLUTION-POLICY-UDRP-FOR-DOMAIN-NAMES-SUBJECTOF-THE-COURT-APPLICATION-PROVIDED-BY-ARTICLE-364-ROMANIAN-CIVILPROCEDURE-CODE-~267.html
2. French, Duncan; Saul, Matthew, International law and dispute settlement: new, problems and
techniques, Portland: Hart Publishing; Oxford, 2010,
3. Belohlavek, Alexander J.; Hotova, Renata, Expertii in cadrul procedurilor internationale: -in litigii civile
si penale, in arbitrajul international si in protectia investitiilor straine, C.H. Beck; Bucuresti, 2012,
341.6/B43.
4. http://www.legi-internet.ro/jurisprudenta-it-romania.html
5. http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/center/bibliograhy/udrp.html
Course Structure
This course encompasses 5 learning units.

Each student has the duty to prepare an essay on a course related theme. The essay shall consist of
minimum 10, maximum 25 pages. In order to prove the originality and authenticity of the essay
the student shall complete and attach an own liability statement related to copyright compliance.
Preliminary request
This course does not entail the accomplishment on any preliminary requests.
Average time for individual study
For the study each learning unit the student shall spend an average of 2 to 3 hours.
Evaluation
Student evaluation shall be accomplished as follows:
Final evaluation, through written exam at the end of the semester. The exam shall consist in the
simulation of a UDRP dispute settlement., based on UDRP file. The student can receive grades
from 1 to 10. The final grade shall be established as follows:
1. Exam answers
90%;
2. General activity (essay, debates)
10%;
The student shall pass the exam if he/she acquires a grade above or equal to 5, in which at least
30% shall be represented by the final exam grade.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Learning Unit no. 1

INTRODUCTION IN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
1. Defining the notion of alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
1.1. Definition
1.2. Historical landmarks
2. Applicability
2.1. International public law
2.2. International private and national law
3. Alternative dispute resolution methods
3.1. Negotiation general characteristics
3.2. Good offices - general characteristics
3.3. Enquiry - general characteristics
3.4. Mediation - general characteristics
3.5. Conciliation - general characteristics
3.6. Arbitration - general characteristics
3.7. Administrative proceedings - general characteristics
4. Identifying the source of the obligation to make use of ADR
4.1. International treaties
4.2. National legislation
4.3. Specific agreements (domain name registration, FIDIC) as per the will of the contracting
parties
Learning Unit no. 2

IDENTIFYING ADR MECHANISMS
1. ADR mechanisms within the international public law
1.1. History
1.2. United Nations Charter overview
1.3. Content
1.4. Application of the peaceful settlement of disputes principle

1.5. Types of peaceful settlement of disputes methods
1.5.1. Political or diplomatic methods
A. Negotiation
B. Methods implying Third Party involvement
1.5.2. Arbitration as judicial method
A. Parties agreement
B. The parties role in arbitration
C. Arbitral award
D. Arbitral forums
8
2. ADR mechanisms in international private law

2.1. International Arbitration
2.1.1. Characteristics of arbitration
2.1.2. Advantages
2.1.3. Rules of procedure
2.1.4. International Arbitration Institutions
2.2. International Mediation
3. Domestic ADR
Learning Unit no. 3

SPECIAL PROCEDURES UNIFORM DOMAIN-NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION
(UDRP)
1. Domain-name notion and characteristic on the internet
1.1. Domain-name registration, registration agreement
1.2. Domain-name disputes and their method of settlement
2. UDRP
2.1. ICANN and its role
2.2. UDRP adoption
2.3. UDRP services providers
2.4. Procedural rules and Supplemental procedural rules
2.5. UDRP limitations, effects and advantages
Learning Unit no. 4

Substantial law rules in UDRP
1. Overview of the cumulative conditions/elements for domain-name registration
2. Element 1 Domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark
2.1. Registered trademark or common law trademark
2.2. Identical or confusingly similar
3. Element 2 - No rights or legitimate interests of the holder in respect to the domain name
3.1. Good faith use of the domain name
3.2. The holder of the domain name is commonly known by the domain name and legitimate
use by the holder lacking commercial character
4. Element 3 Registration and use of the domain name in bad faith
4.1. Bad faith registration
4.2. Bad faith use
Learning Unit no. 5

UDRP Procedural Rules
1. Overview
2. Procedural rules common to all suppliers
10
Learning Unit no. 1

INTRODUCTION IN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Table of contents:
1.1. Definition
2. Applicability
3.1. Negotiation general characteristics
4.3. Specific agreements (domain name registration, FIDIC) as per the will of
the contracting parties
Learning Unit Objectives

After completing the study of this learning unit you shall be able to:
Define the notion of alternative dispute resolution;
Present the applicability of ADR within the international public and private
law and national law;
Describe the alternative dispute resolution methods;
Identify ADR sources.
The average time needed to complete the study of this learning unit is
approximately 2 hours.
11

1.1. Definition
According to Sir Laurence Street, a prominent jurist of Australia, the ADR evolution has
progressed in recent decades to the point where the letters ADR have acquired a generic
significance. Those letters, he considers, have masked the important distinction between deciding
and resolving disputes. He says, Judges do not resolve disputes coming before their courts; they
decide disputes or adjudicate on them.
The notion of alternative dispute resolution (ADRT) encompasses the procedures for settling
disputes by means other than litigation in Courts; e.g., by arbitration mediation, conciliation or
mini-trials. Such procedures, which are usually less costly and more expeditious than litigation,
are increasingly being used in commercial and labor disputes and in other disputes that would
likely otherwise involve court litigation.
ADR expansion as choice for settlement for dispute is mainly due to the following advantages:
It typically involves a process much less formal than the traditional court process and may
include the appointment of a third-party to preside over a hearing between the parties.
The advantages of ADR are speed and money: it costs less and is quicker than court
litigation.
ADR forums are also private.
1800 BC Mari Kingdom (present Syria) used mediation and arbitration in disputes with
other kingdoms;
960 B.C. Israel's King Solomon arbitrates dispute over baby by threatening to split the
child;
400 B.C. Greeks use public arbitrator in city-states;
Arbitration decisions between city-state published" on temple columns;
300 B.C. Aristotle praises arbitration over courts;
452 A.D. As Attila the Hun destroyed city after city in his sweep across Europe, Pope Leo
the Great successfully negotiates to spare the city of Ravenna, Rome's western capital;
1914-1918 World War 1 uses ADR process to resolve labor disputes and establish labor
agreements to aid war effort;
1926 American Arbitration Association created from merger of an arbitration foundation
and society;
1958 New York - it is adopted CONVENTION ON THE RECOGNITION AND
ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS;
1961 Geneva it is adopted EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION ;
1965 - Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals
of Other States is adopted and International Center for Settlement of Disputes is
established after its entrance to force.
2. Applicability
ADR is used as diplomatic or political means of solving the disputes:
Art. 33 Peaceful settlement of disputes (UN CHARTER):
12
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of
international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry,
mediation, conciliation, arbitration, .., resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other
peaceful means of their own choice.
The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute
by such means
ADR is used for settlement of commercial disputes and not only.
There are different international bodies established for the development of trade and commerce:
the Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce - ICC
http://www.iccarbitration.org
the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law UNCITRAL
http://www.uncitral.org
European Court of Arbitration - http://www.cour-europe-arbitrage.org/
Parties to international commercial contracts may resort to one of several methods of dispute
resolution, while the three principal ones are litigation (judicial proceedings), conciliation
(mediation), and arbitration (settlement of disputes by third party pursuant to agreement of the
parties)
Sport - Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) / Tribunal Arbitral du Sport
(TAS): http://www.tas-cas.org
LCIA (London Court of International Arbitration) http://www.lcia.org
This Chamber is to have all the virtues which the law lacks. It is to be expeditious where the law
is slow, cheap where the law is costly, simple where the law is technical, a peacemaker instead of
a stirrer-up of strife.
Intellectual
property
World
Intellectual
Property
Organization
http://www.wipo.int/amc
3.1. Negotiation - general characteristics
Negotiation is the process of bargaining between two (or more) interests.
It can be conducted directly by the concerned parties or can take place during the mediation
process. In negotiation, the concerned parties meet to resolve a dispute.
Good offices involve the use of a third party to improve communication between the parties
through a third party.
The third party may, for example, encourage the parties to the dispute to communicate in a more
constructive manner than they had prior to the third partys involvement. Generally, this role has
occurred where there is a clear need to improve communication prior to engaging in mediation or
negotiation to resolve the dispute.
As an example ICAO has exercised its good offices on a number of occasions in the context of
disputes falling under the umbrella of the Chicago Convention (article 14). ICAO used its good
offices, along with mediation, to bring India and Pakistan to the point where settlement of their
1952 dispute regarding the erection of a prohibited zone took place.
13

Enquiry of Fact Finding is the use of an impartial expert (or group) selected by the parties, by an
institution or by an individual with the authority to appoint a fact finder, in order to determine
what the "facts" are in a dispute.
The fact finder may be authorized only to investigate or evaluate the matter presented and file a
report establishing the facts in the matter. In some cases, s/he may be authorized to issue either a
situation assessment or a specific procedural or substantive recommendation as to how a dispute
might be resolved. If used as an ADR technique, the findings of fact must remain confidential.
Mediation aims to assist two (or more) disputants in reaching an agreement.
Whether an agreement results or not, and whatever the content of that agreement, if any, the
parties themselves determine rather than accepting something imposed by a third party.
The disputes may involve states, organizations, communities, individuals or other representatives
with a vested interest in the outcome.
Mediators use appropriate techniques and/or skills to open and/or improve dialogue between
disputants, aiming to help the parties reach an agreement (with concrete effects) on the disputed
matter. All parties must view the mediator as impartial.
The term "mediation" broadly refers to any instance in which a third party helps others reach
agreement. More specifically, mediation has a structure, timetable and dynamics that "ordinary"
negotiation lacks.
The process is private and confidential, possibly enforced by law. Participation is typically
voluntary. The mediator acts as a neutral third party and facilitates rather than directs the process.
Mediation can apply in a variety of disputes, such as commercial, legal, diplomatic, workplace,
community and divorce or other family matters.
Conciliation is a process through which two or more parties may explore and reach a negotiated
solution to their conflict with the help of a third neutral and disinterested party, the conciliator.
The conciliation process finds its most solid foundation and eventual success on the will of the
parties to engage in a meaningful dialogue regardless of the depth of their differences.
Conciliation intends to explore common grounds upon which the parties may build an agreement
acceptable to all involved.
Because of his impartiality, independence, and professional experience, the conciliator can help
the parties understand the motives and needs of all involved. However, the conciliation process
does not seek a solution at any cost, nor may a conciliator impose a solution upon the parties.
The difference between conciliation and mediation lies in that the conciliator may offer an opinion
and alternatives with respect to proposals advanced by any one party to the other.
Arbitration is the process of bringing a business dispute before an impartial third party for
resolution.
14
The third party, an arbitrator, hears the evidence brought by both sides, in a detailed procedure
and passes a decision.
Most of the times the decision is binding on the parties.
Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) provides for hybrid mediation arbitration procedures for disputes related to domain names.
There are 5 UDRP international providers with their own lists.
The settlement of a dispute by DAB (Dispute Adjudicators Board) within FIDIC (International
Federation for Consulting Engineers) is to be triggered by a specific clause introduced in FIDIC
contracts, binding if not challenged in a certain term in arbitration or courts.
Highly regulated International treaties providing for:
- Negotiation before going to ICJ: Chicago Conventions Article 84, which requires them to
do so prior to commencing judicial proceedings before the ICAO Council. Most bilateral
air transport agreements also expressly stipulate that the parties should first negotiate
before taking the next step. International courts jurisprudence established an obligation to
negotiate before going to judicial settlement, UN Charter, 1899 , 1907 Hague
Conventions, 1948 Bogota Pact
- Good offices ICAO article 14, 54 k and 54 j from Chicago Convention on ICAO, UN
Charter, 1899, 1907 Hague Conventions, 1948 Bogota Pact
- enquiry/fact finding commission: article 90 from PA I to the 1948 Geneva Conventions,
UN charter, Chicago Convention on ICAO in connection with article 26, UN organisms
practices: UN SC, UN SG, UN HRC, 1948 Bogota Pact
- Mediation - UN charter, 189, 1907 Hague Convention, 1948 Bogota Pact
- Conciliation OSCE Court of Arbitration and Conciliation established in 1995 by
Convention on conciliation and arbitration, Institute of International Law 1961
Conciliation Act, bilateral treaties
- Arbitration as ADR ad hoc and institutionalised through PCA,
- Effects of arbitration New York Convention
- Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on
certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters.
4.3. Specific agreements (domain name registration, FIDIC) as per the will of the
contracting parties
An agreement may include standard and nonstandard clauses on mediation, conciliation and
arbitration, other procedures.
Advantages of standard clauses proposed by different institutions are linked to clarity for
avoidance of nullity of the solution because of the misinterpretation of the clause.
Agreement mediation standard clause WIPO
"Any dispute, controversy or claim arising under, out of or relating to this contract and any
subsequent amendments of this contract, including, without limitation, its formation, validity,
binding effect, interpretation, performance, breach or termination, as well as non-contractual
15
claims, shall be submitted to mediation in accordance with the WIPO Mediation Rules. The place
of mediation shall be [specify place]. The language to be used in the mediation shall be [specify
language]."
Agreement standard arbitration/compromisory clause ICC
All disputes arising out of or in connection with the present contract shall be finally settled under
the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce by one or more arbitrators
appointed in accordance with the said Rules.
Domain name registration agreement
DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY: You are bound by all ICANN consensus policies and all
policies of any relevant registry, including but not limited to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy ("UDRP"), which is available at http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-rules24oct99.htm and http://www.icann.org/dndr/udrp/policy.htm along with the UDRP Rules and all
Supplemental Rules of any UDRP provider. The UDRP may be changed by ICANN (or ICANN's
successor) at any time. If the registration or reservation of your domain name is challenged by a
third party, you will be subject to the provisions specified in the UDRP in effect at the time your
domain name registration is disputed by the third party. In the event a domain name dispute arises
with any third party, you will indemnify and hold us harmless pursuant to the terms and
conditions of the UDRP. If you or your domain name is the subject of litigation, we may deposit
control of your domain name record into the registry of the judicial body by providing a party
with a registrar certificate.
Specific contracts FIDIC - clause 20 from General Conditions Claims, disputes and arbitration.
16
Learning Unit no. 2

IDENTIFYING ADR MECHANISMS
Table of contents:
1.1. History
1.3. Content

A. Negotiation
B. The parties role in arbitration
C. Arbitral award
D. Arbitral forums
2.1.2. Advantages
3. Domestic ADR

Identify ADR mechanism within the international public and private law, as
well as in domestic law;
Present the importance of the peaceful settlement principle;
Distinguish between various types of peaceful settlement methods.
17

1.1. History
Since our early ages, peoples have used war as a mean of solving of disputes between them. When the
Napoleonian wars changed the dimension of war, the international community struggled to adopt a policy
of peace and collective security. In this context, the Hague Peace conferences were held in 1899, 1907
ending with the conclusion of the 1899 Hague Convention which provides in 61 articles for good offices,
mediation, enquiry and arbitration. Section I from 1907 Hague represents a revision of Section I of the
1899 Hague Convention and consists of 97 articles.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration was also established in 1899.
In 1919 The League of Nations (LN) is established with the main purpose of international cooperation for
international peace and security ensurement. The Council of LN is involved in peaceful settlement of
disputes as provided in article 17 from the Statute of LN .
The Permanent Court of Justice was established in 1924.
It can be therefore concluded that in international public law there is applicable the principle of peaceful
settlement of disputes.
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the
prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other
breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of
justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might
lead to a breach of the peace.
Article 2 para (3) of the Charter provides that: All Members shall settle their international disputes by
peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
1.3. Content
Abstention of the parties to dispute to act in anyway which would make the situation worse;
The freedom to choose the method of peaceful settlement;
The states acts in their sovereign capacity;
The resolution of the disputes according to the principles of justice and international public law.

This principle is applied to:
a) International dispute - a disagreement over a law or factual issue, an opposition of
juridical thesis or interests between states (PCA, Mavromatis Concessions in Palestine
Affair, 1924);
b) International situation - a state of fact international friction or give rise to a dispute"
(article 34 UN Charter).
The political/diplomatically methods of alternative dispute resolution are negotiation, good
offices, mediation, fact finding and conciliation.
18
Common characteristics:
Prior character, in relation with those of judicial nature.
A certain lack of formalism, in the sense of not taking always place in a pre-established
institutional framework.
In case of peaceful settlement involving a third party the solution is not mandatory.
Total freedom of the parties to choose a method or to combine the methods
Flexibility of such methods.
A. Negotiation
- The parties engage in direct contact meetings and discussions but also through written
documents in the absence of a strictly defined procedure. Different levels of
representations
- Prior mandatory character (PCA, Mavromatis Concessions in Palestine, 1924, Law of the
Sea International Tribunal, Case Sothern Bluefin Tuna Case, Order for Provisional
Measures1999).
- Good faith negotiation
- Duration variable
Good offices
The third party is accepted by all

parties. He/she facilitates the contact
between the disputing parties
Good offices of the US

President in 1906 regarding
the ending of the Russian
Japanese War
Good offices of France ending
the Vietnam War in 70
Mediation, the
mandate of the
mediator
The third party accepted by all the

parties involved proposes solution
Pope Mediation in the

territorial dispute between
Argentina and Chile regarding
the Beagle Channel
Mediation between Israel and
Egypt in 1979 at Camp David;
Fact Finding
Established by
international
agreement
The FF commission establishes the

factual situation in a written report.
Incident from Dogger Bank

between Russia and UK in
1904.
Different FF UN commission
Conciliation
Established by
international
agreement
The conciliator establishes the

factual situation and proposes
solutions for law issues.

Compromisory/arbitration clause (apriori)
Arbitration Compromise Arbitration agreement (aposteriori)
19
B. The Parties role in arbitration

Choice of the arbitration organ and its composition
Defining the mandate of the arbitral organ
Applicable law.
Arbitration procedure
C. Arbitral Award
Content
Validity
Non enforceable character in international law
D. Arbitral forums
Permanent Court of Arbitration http://www.pca-cpa.org
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID https://icsid.worldbank.org)
Article 25
The jurisdiction of the Centre shall extend to any legal dispute arising directly out of an
investment, between a Contracting State (or any constituent subdivision or agency of a
Contracting State designated to the Centre by that State) and a national of another
Contracting State, which the parties to the dispute consent in writing to submit to the
Centre. When the parties have given their consent, no party may withdraw its consent
unilaterally
No express definition of arbitration in international conventions
Some content may be afforded to a possible definition:
A. arbitration is a mechanism for the settlement of disputes
- Dispute is needed in order to be settled
- What if settled by agreement during arbitration?
Once the parties have reached an agreement to settle the dispute, there is no longer any dispute
for the arbitral tribunal to consider.
Nevertheless, as provided in Article 30 of the Model Law:
(1) If, during arbitral proceedings, the parties settle the dispute, the arbitral tribunal shall
terminate the proceedings and, if requested by the parties and not objected to by the arbitral
tribunal, record the settlement in the form of an arbitral award on agreed terms.
(2) An award on agreed terms shall be made in accordance with the provisions of article 31
and shall state that it is an award. Such an award has the same status and effect as any other
award on the merits of the case.
B. arbitration is consensual
Arbitration is a consensual procedure based on the agreement of the parties limiting the
mandate of the arbitral tribunal.
Article V of the New York Convention,
1. Recognition and enforcement of the award may be refused, at the request of the party
against whom it is invoked, . . . if that party furnishes to the competent authority where the
recognition and enforcement is sought, proof that:
20
...
(c) The award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the
submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the
submission to arbitration, .
C. arbitration is a private procedure
- is not part of the state courts, state has direct interest in regulating arbitration as the decision
is binding and enforceable regulation by Civil Procedure Code
- Confidentiality of the procedure
Article 30 of the LCIA Arbitration Rules.
Unless the parties expressly agree in writing to the contrary, the parties undertake as a
general principle to keep confidential all awards in their arbitration, together with all
materials in the proceedings created for the purpose of the arbitration and all other documents
produced by another party in the proceedings not otherwise in the public domain - save and to
the extent that disclosure may be required of a party by legal duty, to protect or pursue a legal
right or to enforce or challenge an award in bona fide legal proceedings before a state court
or other judicial authority.
D. arbitration leads to a final and binding determination of the rights and obligations of the parties
- ICC Arbitration Rule 28(6), specifically provides that
Every Award shall be binding on the parties. By submitting the dispute to arbitration under
these Rules, the parties undertake to carry out any Award without delay .
- Article III of the New York Convention requires the currently 135 Contracting States to
recognize arbitral awards as binding and enforce them in accordance with the rules of
procedure of the territory where the award is relied upon
One may distinguish between the following types of international arbitration
- Commercial/non-commercial arbitration
- Foreign/domestic arbitration
- Domestic/international arbitration
- Institutionalised/ ad-hoc
International arbitration is to be determined by two methods:
- One is to consider the transaction; does it involve a transaction that is either in a State other
than the place of arbitration or that takes place in two or more States.
- The other method is to consider the parties if they come from different States.
2.1.2. Advantages
a. Freedom to choose the arbitrators
b. Adapted to a specific dispute
c. No appeal on the merits
d. Faster and cheaper
e. Avoidance for litigating in a foreign court
f. Reduces inequalities
g. Creates trust when state is a party
h. Ease of enforcement
Each mechanism provides for rules of procedure. They regulate:
- the filing of claims,
- the constitution of arbitral tribunals,
21
the conduct of proceedings,

the rendering of decisions and
the determination of costs.
While offering security and predictability, the Rules also accommodate any preferences parties in
dispute might have with respect to certain aspects of the proceedings, such as the choice of
arbitrators, the place, and the language of arbitration.
In all matters that are not expressly provided for in the Court and Arbitral Tribunal act in the spirit
of the Rules and make every effort to have an enforceable Award.
PCA Permanent Court of Arbitration - http://www.pca-cpa.org,
ICC Court of Arbitration - http://www.iccwbo.org,
Vienna International Arbitral Center http://www.viac.eu/en/
Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce - SCC Arbitration Center http://www.sccinstitute.com
Zurich Court of Arbitration.
WIPO mediation for intellectual property rights
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules/index.html
3. Domestic ADR
Arbitration in Romania is regulated by law, namely by the Civil Procedure Code.
Domestic and non- domestic arbitration are subject to CPC articles 1123, 1124 of CPC.
Any Arbitral Award rendered in a national or international arbitration from a foreign state and
which are not considered domestic awards represent foreign arbitral award. Article 1123
Institutionalised RCPC, article 616/ad hoc
Characterisation under article 541 CPC
(1) Arbitration is an alternative jurisdiction with a private character
Object of arbitration as per article 542 CPC
Persons with full exercise capacity may agree to subject to arbitration the litigations arisen
between them, with the exception of those litigation referring to their civil status, personal
capacity, inheritance procedure, family relationship or rights in respect to each the parties could
not dispose of
CPC regulates:
- Ad hoc arbitration - article 544
- institutionalised arbitration article 545, title VII, Book IV
- The arbitral convention title II, Book IV
- The arbitral tribunal title III, Book IV
- Arbitral procedure title IV, Book IV
- Procedure of rendering the arbitral award the adjudication of dispute chapter II, Book
IV
- Arbitration expenses
22
Arbitral Award content, cancelation procedure and enforcement
The Court for International Arbitration (CACI) attached to the Chamber of Commerce and
Industry of Romania was established in 1953.
It was reorganised under Law no 335/2007 as a permanent non-corporate arbitration institution
attached to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Romania, for the administration of
international and domestic arbitration.
Under its Regulations on the Organisation and Operation of the Court, the Court provides the
following services: arbitration, consultancy on procedures, studies and research in the field of
arbitration, co-operation with the arbitration commissions within the system of Chambers of
Commerce and Industry in Romania.
Model arbitration clause CACI
Any dispute under or related to this agreement, including with respect to the execution,
performance or termination hereof, shall be settled by means of arbitration, by the Court of
International Commercial Arbitration of the Romanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, in
compliance with the Rules of arbitration procedure of the Court of International Commercial
Arbitration, in force, published in the Official Monitor of Romania, Part. I."
23
Learning Unit no. 3

SPECIAL PROCEDURES UNIFORM DOMAIN-NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION
(UDRP)
Table of Contents:
2. UDRP
2.2. UDRP adoption
2.4. Procedural rules and Supplemental procedural rules

Define the notion of domain name;
Present the basic registration requirements;
Identify the situations in which a domain name dispute may arise;
Present ICANN and its role in domain name dispute resolution;
Identify the rules governing the domain name dispute resolution.
24

According to WIPO, the domain names are defined as easy to remember internet addresses
which are usually used for finding websites.
Each domain name is unique.
The registration is made based on the principle first come, first served.
Types of TLD top-level domain and their specific terminations:
General - Gtld (22): .com, .edu, .gov, .int, .mil, .net, and .org
Based on country code - Cctld, usually formed by two letters: .ro, .me
New gtlds:
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/video/overview-en
Internationalised domain names
Each TLD has an operator.
In Romania, the right granted through the registration contract is the right to use the respective
name. The registration contract is concluded between the registrant and the RNC (the RNC is the
authority regulating the registration of internet domains in Romania National Computer
Network - http://www.rotld.ro/.
The registration contract does not constitute a sale contract but rather it is an unnamed pecuniary
contract ROTLD refers to the right to use the domain name through registration
However, there are different approaches all over the world.
In what regards the dispute between the rights to use vs. right of intangible property the US Court
Decided in Kremen vs. Cohen 9th Circuit, that the right to hold a domain name is a form of
intangible property as:
1. It represents an interest of precise definition,
2. It is subject to exclusive possession or control,
3. A registrant has a legitimate claim to exclusivity.
This view is also supported in Germany, where the domain name is a property granted through a
contract, but the right to use the property is subject to certain obligations and duties that are
subject to trademark law.
A domain name dispute arises when a domain name is in conflict with a registered trademark,
commercial names, geographical indications or a personal name with commercial value.
The disputes are settled by courts:
cec.ro ( Court decision 20.11.2006 transferred to the Romanian Savings Bank CEC SA)
quelle.ro (Court decision 21.11.2006 transferred to Quelle AG)
ats.ro (SC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY SISTEM SRL vs SC AUTOMOTIVE
TRADING SERVICES SRL)
The Bucharest Court of Appeal decision V the Commercial court 26.10.2004 the
domain name is transferred to the plaintiff.
25
Automotive Trading Services SRL, becomes the domain name holder in accordance with
the irrevocable decision of the Romanian Supreme Court from 31.10.2006
laropharm.ro ( Court decision from 31.07.2006 transfer to SC Laropharm SRL,
Decision confirmed by the Romanian Supreme Court through its Decision no. 2279 from
13th of March 2007)
harley-davidson.ro (Court decision from 25.01.2006 - Transfer to H-D Michigan, NC )
topghid.ro (Court decision from 06.05.2004: The owner remains the same.
asirom.ro (ASIROM SA vs SC MEDIA SERVICES AND INFORMATION SRL) Decision of the Bucharest Tribunal - III rd civil court - 16.06.2003
airfrance.ro ( Airfrance vs Amaltea Impex SRL ) Decision of the Bucharest Tribunal 6.11.2001
Issues related to court settlement:

- Lack of specific legislation in Romania, application of legal institutions which do not fit
exactly on the notion
- Lengthiness of the procedures
- Costs
2. UDRP
ICANN or the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (http://www.icann.org
) is an internationally organized, non-profit corporation that is responsible for:
- Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation,
- protocol identifier assignment,
- generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management,
and root server system management functions
- for managing and coordinating the Domain Name System (DNS) to ensure that every
address is unique and that all users of the Internet can find all valid addresses.
- for accrediting the domain name registrars.
ICANN is organized as follows:
26
2.2. UDRP adoption

According to ICANN website1, below are the landmarks in formulation and implementation of the
Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy:
5 June 1998 The U.S. Government issues its White Paper, calling for creation of not-for-profit
corporation (later ICANN) to handle consensus-based technical management of the
Internet's infrastructure. The White Paper also states that the U.S. Government will
ask the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to conduct a consultative
study on domain name/trademark issues.
8 July 1998 WIPO conducts its consultative process. For the WIPO timetable, see
to 30 April <http://ecommerce.wipo.int/domains/process/eng/timetable.html>.
1999
30 April
1999
WIPO delivers its final report to ICANN. This report covers several topics,
including dispute resolution (in chapter 3). On dispute resolution, the WIPO report
recommends institution of a policy followed uniformly by all registrars in the .com,
.net, and .org TLDs.
27 May
1999
The ICANN Board adopts a resolution referring the recommendations of chapter 3

of the WIPO final report to the ICANN Domain Name Supporting Organization
(DNSO).
12 June
1999
The DNSO Names Council forms Working Group A to study the WIPO
recommendations regarding dispute resolution.
29 July
1999
Working Group A submits its final report to the Names Council recommending
establishment of a uniform domain-name dispute-resolution policy for all registrars.
4 August
1999
The DNSO Names Council adopts the Working Group A report (with minor
revisions) and sends it to the ICANN Board as a consensus recommendation.
http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/schedule
27
20 August
1999
A group of registrars submits a "Model Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

for Voluntary Adoption by Registrars."
24 August
1999
ICANN staff presents "ICANN Staff Report: Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy
for gTLD Registrars" to the Internet community and the ICANN Board before the
25 August public forum held in Santiago, Chile, on the dispute-resolution policy.
26 August
1999
The ICANN Board accepts the DNSO recommendation for establishment of a

uniform domain-name dispute-resolution policy. The Board instructs ICANN staff
to convene a small drafting committee and prepare implementation documents for
approval after public comment, using the registrars' Model Policy as a starting
point.
29
September
1999
ICANN staff posts its "Staff Report on Implementation Documents for the Uniform
Dispute Resolution Policy," together with implementation documents consisting of
the written UDRP and uniform rules for public comment until 13 October 1999.
24 October The ICANN Board approves the implementation documents, as revised in

accordance with public comments. This approval was based on the "Second Staff
1999
Report on Implementation
Documents for the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy," presented to the Board on
24 October.
29
November
1999
First dispute-resolution service provider (World Intellectual Property Organization-WIPO) approved.
1 December First day complaints may be submitted to dispute-resolution providers for disputes
involving domain names sponsored by most registrars (this did not include America
1999
Online, the NameIT Corp., or Network Solutions).
9 December First proceeding (worldwrestlingfederation.com) commenced.
1999
23
December
1999
Second dispute-resolution service provider (National Arbitration Forum--NAF)

approved.
1 January
2000
Third dispute-resolution service provider (Disputes.org/eResolution consortium-DeC) approved.
3 January
2000
First day for submission of complaints to the dispute-resolution providers for

disputes involving domain names sponsored by America Online, the NameIT Corp.,
and Network Solutions.
14 January First proceeding (worldwrestlingfederation.com) decided.

2000
22 May
2000
Fourth dispute-resolution service provider (CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution-CPR) approved.
16 October Approval of the Disputes.org/eResolution consortium as a dispute-resolution

provider transferred to eResolution (eRes).
2000
30
November
2001
eResolution ceases accepting proceedings.
28
28
February
2002
Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre begins accepting proceedings.
Under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (the Policy), which is a set of
material and procedural rules to be applied by UDRP service providers, most types of trademarkbased domain-name disputes must be resolved by agreement, court action, or arbitration before a
registrar will cancel, suspend, or transfer a domain name. Disputes alleged to arise from abusive
registrations of domain names (for example, cybersquatting) may be addressed by expedited
administrative proceedings that the holder of trademark rights initiates by filing a complaint with
an approved dispute-resolution service provider2.
UDRP as adopted by ICANN, is incorporated by reference into every Registration Agreement,
and sets forth the terms and conditions in connection with a dispute between the holder and other
third parties over the registration and use of an registered Internet domain name. Under article 4
of the Policy it is considered a mandatory administrative proceeding.
Proceedings related to abusive registration of trademark domain names (cybersquatting) and
proceedings under Paragraph 4 of the Policy as indicated below
Applicable Disputes. You are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the
event that a third party (a "complainant") asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with
the Rules of Procedure, that
(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
the complainant has rights; and
(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In the administrative proceeding, the complainant must prove that each of these three elements is
present.
Will be conducted according to the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy (the "Rules of Procedure") and the selected administrative-dispute-resolution service
provider's supplemental rules.3
To invoke the policy, a trademark owner can chose between:
(a) filing a complaint in a court against the allegedly unlawful domain-name holder
or
(b) submiting a complaint to an approved dispute-resolution service provider, in cases of abusive
registration.
2
3
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en
29

Complaints under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy may be submitted to any approved
dispute-resolution service provider as listed below. Each provider follows the Rules for Uniform
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy as well as its own supplemental rules4.
Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre

National Arbitration Forum
WIPO
The Czech Arbitration Court Arbitration Center for Internet Disputes
Arab Center for Domain Name Dispute Resolution (ACDR)
2.4. UDRP Procedural rules and Supplemental procedural rules

Administrative proceedings for the resolution of disputes under the Uniform Dispute Resolution
Policy shall be governed by the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy and
also by the Supplemental Rules of the Provider administering the proceedings. In case of conflict
between the UDRP Rules and the Supplemental Rules, the UDRP shall take precedence5.
The UDRP procedure takes place on line.
Each supplier has its own list of panellists.
According to the statistics provided by WIPO at the address below6, 119 cases involving parties
originating from Romania have been settled under URDRP rules. Out of these, 22 complainants
originated from Romania.
Most well-known recent cases .ro:
4
5
6
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/providers-6d-2012-02-25-en
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/udrp-rules-2015-03-11-en
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/statistics/countries_a-z.jsp
30

The legal remedies are limited to the transfer of the domain name from the registrant to the owner
of the trademark or the cancellation of the registration of the trademark (Article 4 i)
Direct legal effects. The administrative panels decision is mandatory for the registrator which
shall have to apply it if he does not provide proof within 10 working days that he has started a
legal action related to the said domain name, against the complainant, in a chosen jurisdiction.
Low costs. The taxes for a UDRP procedure related to a domain name vary between 1000 and
1500 Euro, depending on the services supplier + lawyer's fees.
Short duration of the proceedings approximately 2 months starting with the filing of the
complaint.
The procedure is developed in the language of the registration agreement.
Ecological aspects the procedure is paperless, it being done on an online platform etc.
31
Learning Unit no. 4

SUBSTANTIAL LAW RULES IN UDRP
Table of Contents:
3. Element 2 - No rights or legitimate interests of the holder in respect to the
domain name
3.2. The holder of the domain name is commonly known by the domain
name and Legitimate use by the holder lacking commercial character
4.2. Bad faith use

Identify the cumulative conditions for domain name registration;
Present each such condition/element;
Present relevant cases which represent the point of view of the panels over
controversial aspects.
32

Under article 4 letter a) of the UDRP, domain name disputes may arise when:
(i) a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
complainant has rights; and
(ii) the holder does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Per a contrario, in order to be registered, a domain name must be unique, its holder must be able
to prove its right or legitimate interest over the domain name and the registration and use must be
performed in good-faith.
A. Components
A.1. the existence of the Complainant's right over the trademark obtained:
1. a. Through registration
1.b. Through use, common law
A.2. The domain name is identical or similar up to the confusion with the Complainant's
trademark
UDRP applies in the case of domain names which are identical or similar to a registered
trademark or services.
In the practice of the administrative panels it was considered that the UDRP procedure is
applicable also to
- Individuals name only when it is used in trade and other services
Relevant cases: Julia Fiona Roberts v. Russell Boyd D2000-0210 <juliaroberts.com>,
Transfer, Jeanette Winterson v. Mark Hogarth D2000-0235 <jeanettewinterson.com>
among others, Transfer, Dr. Michael Crichton v. In Stealth Mode D2002-0874 <michaelcrichton.com>, Transfer
- Geographical indications, the Complainant has shown that it holds rights in the term and
that the term is being used as a trademark for goods or services other than those that are
described by or related to the geographical meaning of the term (secondary meaning).
Relevant cases: FC Bayern Mnchen AG v. Peoples Net Services Ltd., WIPO Case
No. D2003-0464, <bayernmuenchen.net> inter alia, Transfer, Instra Corporation Pty Ltd
v. Domain Management SPM, WIPO Case No. D2009-1097, <asiaegistry.com> inter alia,
Transfer
The Complainant's right is proven through registration
Is the trademark registration proof enough to demonstrate the Complainant's right over the
trademark?
33
Consensus view: the administrative panels practice is in the sense that the registration is
sufficient
Relevant cases:Thaigem Global Marketing Limited v. Sanchai Aree, WIPO Case No. D20020358, <thaigem.net>, Transfer, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Relish Enterprises, WIPO Case
No. D2007-1629, <xenicalla.com>, Transfer,, RapidShare AG and Christian Schmid v. majeed
randi, WIPO Case No. D2010-1089, <rapidpiracy.com>, Transfer
Exceptions: the circumstances surrounding the registration of the trademark
Relevant cases: Lion Country Supply, Inc. v. J. Katz, WIPO Case No. D2003-0106,
<lioncountrysupply.com>, Transfer, PC Mall, Inc. v. Pygmy Computer Systems, Inc., WIPO Case
No. D2004-0437, <mobile-mall.com> inter alia, Respins, Displays Depot, Inc. v. GNO, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0445, <displaydepot.com>, Rejected, Advance News Service Inc. v.
Vertical Axis, Inc. / Religionnewsservice.com, WIPO Case No. D2008-1475,
The Complainant's right, in the absence of the registration, is proven through use
Consensus view: The complainant must show that the name has become a distinctive identifier
associated with the complainant or its goods or services. Relevant evidence of such "secondary
meaning" includes length and amount of sales under the trademark, the nature and extent of
advertising, consumer surveys and media recognition.
Relevant cases: Uitgeverij Crux v. W. Frederic Isler, WIPO Case No. D2000-0575, <crux.net >,
Transfer, Skattedirektoratet v. Eivind Nag, WIPO Case No. D2000-1314, <skatteetaten.com>,
Transfer, Australian Trade Commission v. Matthew Reader, WIPO Case No. D2002-0786,
<austrade.com>, Alpine Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Walter Alvarez, WIPO Case No. D20061392, <realspanking.com>, Rejected, Fairview Commercial Lending, Inc. v. Aleksandra Pesalj,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0123, <fairviewlending.org>, Rejected
Even in civil law systems, one can support the right to a trademark through use, motivated by a
great number of motives, especially that of the nature of the Internet.
It is not sufficient to state that rights over the said trademark have been obtained through the use
of the trademark, it must also be proven.
In the case of trademarks which are made of generic or descriptive words, the creation of a
secondary meaning of the trademark in relation to the products and services which it designates
must be proven.
The Complainant's quality, as owner or licensee of the trademark
Consensus view: Yes, not only a licensee of a trademark but also a mother company or the
daughter company of the trademark owner.
Relevant cases: Telcel, C.A. v. jerm and Jhonattan Ramrez, WIPO Case No. D2002-0309,
<telcelbellsouth.com>, Transfer, Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. v. J. Alexis Productions,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0624, <lexusmichaels.com>, Rejected, Grupo Televisa, S.A., Televisa,
S.A. de C.V., Estrategia Televisa, S.A. de C.V., Videoserpel, Ltd. v. Party Night Inc., a/k/a Peter
Carrington, WIPO Case No. D2003-0796, <televisadeporte.com>, Transfer
Komatsu Deutschland GmbH v. Ali Osman / ANS, WIPO Case No. D2009-0107,
<komatsugermany.com> inter alia, Transfer
How is the similarity which produces confusion or the identity between a trademark and the
domain name appreciated?
34
Through a visual and phonetic comparison between the trademark and the domain name,
the recognition of the trademark in the domain name, through the adding of descriptive,
generic or negative connotation words
The existence of a risk that the internet users make a link between the trademark and the
disputed domain name which may be determined through the general impression created
by the domain name, the distinctive value of the terms, letters added to the trademark
within the domain name.
The level termination often bears no relevance.
Relevant cases: Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Limited v. Dejan Macesic, WIPO Case
No. D2000-1698, <guiness.com>, Transfer , Dixons Group Plc v. Mr. Abu Abdullaah,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0843, <dixons-online.net>, Transfer, America Online, Inc. v.
Johuathan Investments, Inc., and AOLLNEWS.COM, WIPO Case No. D2001-0918,
<aollnews.com> inter alia, Respins, Transfer in part, Ice House America, LLC v. Ice Igloo,
Inc., WIPO Case No. D2005-0649, <icehouseamerica.com> inter alia, Transfer, Harry
Winston Inc. and Harry Winston S.A. v. Jennifer Katherman, WIPO Case No. D2008-1267,
<hairywinston.com>, Rejected, project.me GmbH v. Alan Lin, WIPO Case No. DME20090008, <project.me>, Rejected, Research in Motion Limited v. One Star Global LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0227, <unofficialblackberrystore.com>, Transfer, F. Hoffmann-La
Roche AG v. P Martin, WIPO Case No. D2009-0323, <alli-xenical.com>, Transfer
Mejeriforeningen Danish Dairy Board v. Cykon Technology Limited, WIPO Case No. D20100776, <lurpa.com>, Transfer, Mile, Inc. v. Michael Burg, WIPO Case No. D2010-2011,
<lionsden.com>, Rejected
Is a domain name consisting of a trademark and a negative term confusingly similar to the
complainant's trademark? ("sucks cases")
Consensus view: in general, yes.
Relevant cases: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case
No. D2000-0662,
<wal-martsucks.com>,
Transfer
A & F Trademark, Inc. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. v. Justin Jorgensen,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0900, <abercrombieandfilth.com>, Transfer, Asda Group Limited v. Mr.
Paul Kilgour, WIPO Case No. D2002-0857, <asdasucks.net>, Rejected, Sermo, Inc. v.
CatalystMD, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2008-0647, <sermosucks.com>,
Typosquatting (obvious misspelling of a trademark)
Consensus view: A domain name which contains a common or obvious misspelling of a
trademark normally will be found to be confusingly similar to such trademark.
Relevant cases: Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington, WIPO Case No.D2002-0775,
<wochovia.com> inter alia, Transfer, Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. v. LaPorte Holdings,
WIPO Case No.D2004-0971, <fuijifilm.com>, Transfer, Humana Inc. v. Cayman Trademark
Trust, WIPO Case No.D2006-0073, <humanna.com>, Transfer, Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Digi Real
Estate Foundation, WIPO Case No.D2006-1043, <edmundss.com>, Transfer, Express Scripts,
Inc. v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Domaindeals, Domain Administrator, WIPO Case
No.D2008-1302, <expresscripts.com>, Transfer
The approach on figurative of combined trademarks
Consensus view: the figurative elements or designs are not usually taken into consideration in
establishing the first element.
35
Relevant cases: Islamic Bank of Britain Plc v. Ifena Consulting, Charles Shrimpton, WIPO Case
No.D2010-0509, <Islamic-bank.com>, Transfer, Limited Liability Company Infomedia v. c/o
Office-Mail processing center / Whois privacy services, provided by DomainProtect LLC / 1)
Eurofirm Ltd. 2) Ethno Share PO, Domain Manager, WIPO Case No.D2010-1239, <ethno.com>,
Respins, Comservice SA v. Mdnh Inc., Brendhan Height, WIPO Case No. D2010-1591,
<comservice.com>, Rejected
3. Element 2 - No rights or legitimate interests of the holder in respect to the domain name
How to demonstrate ones rights to and legitimate interests in the domain name that is the subject
of the Complaint, when responding to such a complaint?
According to article 4 letter c:
...any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the
Administrative Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall
demonstrate the domain name registrant's rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for
the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:
(i) before any notice to the domain name registrant of the dispute, the registrant's use of, or
demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name
in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the domain name registrant (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been
commonly known by the domain name, even if the registrant has acquired no trademark or service
mark rights; or
(iii) the domain name registrant is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the
domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish
the trademark or service mark at issue.

Components:
The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question
a. The rights or legitimate interests do not result from the registration of the domain name
as a trademark
b. They may be obtained through a specific usage, common law.
Use or proof of use of the domain name in question
In the Administrative Panels practice, the following have been considered to represent usage of a
domain name which proves the existence of rights or legitimate interests in the sense of article 4
letter c):
1. The Respondent is a distributor of goods and services of the Complainant.
Consensus view: A reseller or distributor may be considered as making a bona fide offering of
goods and services and thus have a legitimate interest in the domain name if its use meets certain
requirements. These requirements (also known as the OKI DATA principles) normally include:
the actual offering of goods and services at issue,
36
the use of the site to sell only the trademarked goods, and
the site's accurately and prominently disclosing the registrant's relationship with the
trademark holder
Many panels subscribing to this view have also found that unauthorized resellers may also fall
within these principles.
Relevant decisions: Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No.D2001-0903,
<okidataparts.com>, Denial Experian Information Solutions, Inc. v. Credit Research, Inc.,
WIPO Case No.D2002-0095, <experiancredit.com> inter alia, Transfer, National Association for
Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc. v. Racing Connection / The Racin' Connection, Inc., WIPO Case
No.D2007-1524, <nascartours.com>, respins , ITT Manufacturing Enterprises, Inc., ITT
Corporation v. Douglas Nicoll, Differential Pressure Instruments, Inc., WIPO Case No.D20080936, <ittbarton.com> inter alia, rejected, MasterCard International Incorporated v. Global
Access, WIPO Case No.D2008-1940, <mastercards.com>, Transfer, Research in Motion Limited
v. One Star Global LLC, WIPO Case No.D2009-0227, <unofficialblackberrystore.com>,
Transfer, Intex Recreation Corp. v. RBT, Inc., Ira Weinstein, WIPO Case No.,D2010-0119,
<intexpool.com>, Transfer, National Association of Realtors v. John Fothergill, WIPO Case
No.D2010-1284, <listonrealtor.com>, Transfer
Dissenting view: A small number of panels have taken the view that, without express authority of
the relevant trademark holder, a right to resell or distribute that trademark holder's products does
not create rights or legitimate interests.
Relevant decisions: Motorola, Inc. vs NewGate Internet, Inc., WIPO Case No.D2000-0079,
<talkabout.com>, Transfer with Dissenting Opinion, General Electric Company v. Japan, Inc.,
WIPO Case No.D2001-0410, <japan-ge.com>, Transfer,Rada Mfg. Co. v. J. Mark Press a/k/a J.
Mark Cutlery, WIPO Case No.D2004-1060, <radacutlerysales.com>, Transfer, F. Hoffmann-La
Roche AG v. Canadian Pharmacy Network Online, WIPO Case No.D2005-1203, <canadianpharmacy-xeloda.com>, Transfer, X-ONE B.V. v. Robert Modic, WIPO Case No.D2010-0207,
<gaastrashop.com>, TransferVibram S.p.A. v. Chen yanbing, WIPO Case No.D2010-0981,
<discountvibramfivefingers.com>, Transfer, Beyonc Knowles v. Sonny Ahuja, WIPO Case
No.D2010-1431, <beyoncefragrance.com>, Transfer
For cases dealing with a non-contractual relationship between the trademark holder and the
domain name holder: DaimlerChrysler A.G. v. Donald Drummonds, WIPO Case No.D20010160, <mercedesshop.com>, Rejected , Philip Morris Incorporated v. Alex Tsypkin, WIPO Case
No.D2002-0946, <discount-marlboro-cigarettes.com>, Transfer, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v.
Del Fabbro Laurent, WIPO Case No.D2004-0481, <porsche-buy.com> inter alia, Rejected
Rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent related to domain names containing generic
or descriptive words
Consensus view: Factors a panel tends to look for when assessing whether there may be rights or
legitimate interests include:
- the status and fame of the trademark,
- whether the respondent has registered other domain names containing dictionary words
or phrases, and
- whether the domain name is used in connection with a purpose relating to its generic or
descriptive meaning
Relevant decisions: Asphalt Research Technology, Inc. v. National Press & Publishing, Inc.,
WIPO Case No.D2000-1005, <ezstreet.net>, Rejected, 402 Shoes, Inc. dba Trashy Lingerie v.
37
Jack Weinstock and Whispers Lingerie, WIPO Case No.D2000-1223, <trashylingerie.com>,

Transfer with dissenting opinion Gorstew Limited v. Worldwidewebsales.com, WIPO Case
No.D2002-0744, <anguillabeaches.com> inter alia, Rejected, Emmanuel Vincent Seal trading as
Complete
Sports
Betting
v.
Ron
Basset,
WIPO Case
No.D2002-1058,
<completesportsbetting.com>, Transfer, Owens Corning Fiberglas Technology, Inc v.
Hammerstone, Mobile Communication Service Inc. v. WebReg, RN, WIPO Case No.D20071318, Rejected, Terroni Inc. v. Gioacchino Zerbo, WIPO Case No.D2008-0666, <terroni.com>,
Transfer,
Gibson,
LLC
v.
Jeanette
Valencia,
WIPO Case
No.D2010-0490,
<moderncowgirls.com>, Transfer
Parking and landing pages or pay-per-click links generate rights or legitimate interests as
used in relation to goods or services unrelated to the trademark.
Relevant decisions: Express Scripts, Inc. v. Windgather Investments Ltd. / Mr. Cartwright,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0267, <express-scrips.com>, Transfer, Asian World of Martial Arts Inc.
v. Texas International Property Associates, WIPO Case No. D2007-1415, <proforcekarate.com>
inter alia, Transfer, Gold Medal Travel Group plc v. Damir Kruzicevic, WIPO Case No. D20071902, <goldmedal.com>, Rejected Legacy Health System v. Nijat Hassanov, WIPO Case
No. D2008-1708, <legacyhealthsystem.com>, Transfer, Trade Me Limited v. Vertical Axis Inc,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0093, <trademe.com>, Rejected, Mpire Corporation v. Michael Frey,
WIPO Case
No. D2009-0258,
<widgebucks.com>,
Transfer
Compart AG v. Compart.com / Vertical Axis, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2009-0462,
<compart.com>, TransferWIPO Case No. D2010-1364, <parishiltonheiress.com>, Transfer
Lardi Ltd v. Belize Domain WHOIS Service Lt, WIPO Case No. D2010-1437, <larditrans.com>,
TransferHavanna S.A. v.
3.2. The holder of the domain name is commonly known by the domain name and legitimate
use by the holder lacking commercial character
A fan site can generate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name
Consensus view: Many of the considerations used by panels in relation to criticism sites also are
applied by panels in relation to fan or tribute cites. Moreover, this section only deals with fan sites
that are clearly active and non-commercial. There are many UDRP cases in which the respondent
claims to have an active non-commercial fan site but the panel finds that it is primarily a pretext
for commercial advantage.
Relevant case: Helen Fielding v. Anthony Corbert aka Anthony Corbett, WIPO Case No.D20001000, <bridgetjones.com>,Transfer
View 1: The registrant of an active and non-commercial fan site may have rights and legitimate
interests in the domain name that includes the complainant's trademark. The site should be
actually in use, clearly distinctive from any official site, and non-commercial in nature. Panels
have found that a claimed fan site which includes pay-per-click (PPC) links or automated
advertising would not normally be regarded as a legitimate non-commercial site. However, some
panels have recognized that a degree of incidental commercial activity may be permissible in
certain circumstances (e.g., where such activity is of an ancillary or limited nature or bears some
relationship to the site's subject).
Relevant decisions: Estate of Gary Jennings and Joyce O. Servis v. Submachine and Joe Ross,
WIPO Case No.D2001-1042, <garyjennings.com>, Rejected, 2001 White Castle Way, Inc. v.
38
Glyn O. Jacobs, WIPO Case No.D2004-0001, <patbenatar.com>, Rejected, Tom Cruise v.

Network Operations Center / Alberta Hot Rods, WIPO Case No.D2006-0560, <tomcruise.com>,
Transfer, Estate of Francis Newton Souza v. ZWYX.org Ltd., WIPO Case No.D2007-0221,
<fnsouza.com>,
Rejected,
The Jennifer Lopez Foundation v. Jeremiah Tieman, Jennifer Lopez Net, Jennifer Lopez, Vaca
Systems LLC, WIPO Case No.D2009-0057, <jenniferlopez.net> inter alia, Transfer
View 2: A respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in expressing its view, even if
positive, on an individual or entity by using an identical or confusingly similar domain name, if
the respondent is intentionally misrepresenting itself as being (or as in some way associated with)
that individual or entity, or seeks to derive commercial advantage from its registration and use.
Also, where the domain name is identical to the trademark, panels have noted that such
respondent action prevents the trademark holder from exercising its rights to the trademark and
managing its presence on the Internet.
Relevant cases: Estate of Gary Jennings and Joyce O. Servis v. Submachine and Joe Ross,
WIPO Case
No.D2001-1042,
<garyjennings.com>,Rejected
2001 White Castle Way, Inc. v. Glyn O. Jacobs, WIPO Case No.D2004-0001, <patbenatar.com>,
Rejected
Tom Cruise v. Network Operations Center / Alberta Hot Rods, WIPO Case No.D2006-0560,
<tomcruise.com>,Transfer
Estate of Francis Newton Souza v. ZWYX.org Ltd., WIPO Case No.D2007-0221,
<fnsouza.com>,Rejected
Ain-Jeem, Inc. v. Barto Enterprises, Inc., Philip Barto, WIPO Case No.D2007-1841,
<kareemabduljabbar.com>,Transfer
Systems LLC, WIPO Case No.D2009-0057, <jenniferlopez.net> inter alia, Transfer
A criticism site can generate rights and legitimate interests
There are many UDRP decisions where the respondent argues that the domain name is being used
for a free speech purpose but the panel finds that it is primarily a pretext for commercial
advantage.
Relevant case: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walsucks and Walmarket Puerto Rico, WIPO Case
No.D2000-0477,
<walmartcanadasucks.com>
inter
alia,
Transfer
Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Spider Webs, Ltd., WIPO Case No.D2001-0398, <relojesrolex.com>
inter alia), Transfer
View 1: The right to criticize does not necessarily extend to registering and using a domain name
that is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's trademark. That is especially the case
if the respondent is using the trademark alone as the domain name (i.e, <trademark.tld>) as that
may be understood by Internet users as impersonating the trademark owner.
Relevant Cases: Skattedirektoratet v. Eivind Nag, WIPO Case No.D2000-1314,
<skatteetaten.com>, Transfer , Myer Stores Limited v. Mr. David John Singh, WIPO Case
No.D2001-0763, <myeronline.com>, Transfer, Triodos Bank NV v. Ashley Dobbs, WIPO Case
No.D2002-0776,
<triodos-bank.com>,
Transfer
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, National Westminster Bank plc A/K/A NatWest Bank v.
Personal and Pedro Lopez, WIPO Case No.D2003-0166, <natwestbanksucks.com>, Transfer
Kirkland & Ellis LLP v. DefaultData.com, American Distribution Systems, Inc., WIPO Case
No.D2004-0136,<kirklandandellis.com>,Transfer
39
1066 Housing Association Ltd. v. Mr. D. Morgan, WIPO Case No.D2007-1461, <1066ha.com>,
Transfer, Hoteles Tursticos Unidos S.A., HOTUSA v. Jomar Technologies, WIPO Case
No.D2008-0136,<eurostarsblue.com>,Transfer
Aspis Liv Frskrings AB v. Neon Network, LLC, WIPO Case No.D2008-0387, <aspis.com>,
Dissenting Opinion transfer, The First Baptist Church of Glenarden v. Melvin Jones, WIPO Case
No.D2009-0022, <fbcglenarden.com>, Transfer
View 2: Irrespective of whether the domain name as such connotes criticism, the respondent has a
legitimate interest in using the trademark as part of the domain name of a criticism site if such use
is fair and non-commercial.
Relevant Cases: Bridgestone Firestone, Inc., Bridgestone/Firestone Research, Inc., and
Bridgestone Corporation v. Jack Myers, WIPO Case No.D2000-0190, <bridgestonefirestone.net>,
Rejected
TMP Worldwide Inc. v. Jennifer L. Potter, WIPO Case No.D2000-0536, <tmpworldwide.net>
interalia,Rejected
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Paul McCauley, WIPO Case No.D2004-0014,
<hjta.com>,Rejected
Sermo, Inc. v. CatalystMD, LLC, WIPO Case No.D2008-0647, <sermosucks.com>, Rejected
Sutherland
Institute
v.
Continuative
LLC,
WIPO Case
No.D2009-0693,
<sutherlandinstitute.com>, Rejected
Some panels have opted to assess questions of whether a respondent may have a legitimate
interest in using a trademark as part of the domain name of a criticism site by reference to
additional considerations, including whether:
(i) the domain name has been registered and is used genuinely for the purpose of criticizing
the mark owner;
(ii) the registrant believes the criticism to be well-founded and lacks intent for commercial
gain;
(iii) it is immediately apparent to Internet users visiting the website at the domain name that
it is not operated by the owner of the mark;
(iv) the respondent has refrained from registering all or most of the obvious domain names
reasonably suitable for the owner of the mark;
(v) where appropriate, a prominent and appropriate link is provided to the relevant trademark
owner's website; and
(vi) where there is a likelihood that email intended for the complainant will use the domain
name in issue, senders are alerted in an appropriate way that their emails have been
misaddressed.
Relevant cases: Covance, Inc. and Covance Laboratories Ltd. v. The Covance Campaign,
WIPO Case
No.D2004-0206,
<covancecampaign.com>,
Rejected
Fundacin Calvin Ayre Foundation v. Erik Deutsch, WIPO Case No.D2007-1947,
<calvinayrefoundation.org>,Transfer
Grupo Costamex, SA de C.V. v. Stephen Smith and Oneandone Private Registration / 1&1
Internet
Inc.,
WIPO Case
No.D2009-0062,
<royalholiday.info>,Transfer
Midland Heart Limited v. Uton Black, WIPO Case No.D2009-0076, <midlandheart.com>,
Rejected
40
Does a respondent trademark corresponding to a disputed domain name automatically

generate rights or legitimate interests?
View: Panels have tended to recognize that a respondent's registration of a trademark which
corresponds to a disputed domain name normally will, but does not necessarily, establish
respondent rights or legitimate interests in that domain name for the purpose of the second
element of the UDRP. For example, panels have generally declined to find respondent rights or
legitimate interests in a domain name on the basis of a corresponding trademark registration
where the overall circumstances demonstrate that such trademark was obtained primarily to
circumvent the application of the UDRP.
Relevant decisions: Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847, <madonna.com>, Transfer, Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter Plc
v. Covex Farma S.L., WIPO Case No. D2008-1379, <cavinton.com> inter alia, Transfer,
Cancellation in Part, British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc. and British Sky Broadcasting Limited
v. Global Access, WIPO Case No. D2009-0817, <skytravel.com>, Rejected

As per article 4 letter b, the following represent proof of registration and bad faith use:
In the meaning of Paragraph 4(a) (iii), the following circumstances, particularly, but without
being limited to them, if they are found by the administrative Panels, they shall constitute
evidence of the bad faith registration and use:
(i) Circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for
the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the
complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that
complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the domain name registrant's out-of-pocket
costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) The domain name was registered in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service
mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the domain name
registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) The domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a
competitor; or
(iv) By using the domain name, the domain name registrant intentionally attempted to attract
for financial gain, Internet users to the registrant's website or other on-line location, by creating
a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or
endorsement of the registrant's website or location or of a product or service on the registrant's
website or location.
Components
bad faith registration
bad faith use
both need to be proven, either separately, or together.
In some cases, the administrative panels deduced bad faith registration from use in bad faith
View: In Educational Testing Service v. TOEFL (toefl.com) D2000-0044, the Panel considered
that it can deduce the existence of bad faith, at the time of registration, from the use in bad faith of
41
the domain name, even when the only usage of the domain name is that of proposing its purchase
in a public internet auction. The Panel considered that because the Respondent did nothing but
offer this name up for sale, the registration was therefor done in this sole purpose.
Bad faith versus good faith
Bad faith, as a Civil Law concept was defined in the Romanian legal literature as the attitude of
one person which performs an act or action which contravenes the law, being at the same time
fully aware of the illicit character of its conduct7.
The new Civil Code defines at article 14 the good faith concept, and at article 15 the abuse of
legal right as a concept which is opposite to that of good faith:
ARTICLE 14
Good faith
(1) Any natural or legal person must exercise its rights and fulfil its civil obligations in good
faith, in accordance with public order and good morals.
(2) Good faith is presumed until proven otherwise.
ARTICLE 15
Abuse of legal right
No right can be exercised in the scope of hurting or damaging another, or in an excessive or
unreasonable manner, contrary to good faith.
Bad faith definitions:
Bad faith represents a term used usually in contract law or in other commercial
agreements. It is concept opposite to that of good faith, which refers to the observance of
reasonable standards for the correct conclusion of commercial transactions.8
n. intentional dishonest act by not fulfilling legal or contractual obligations, misleading
another, entering into an agreement without the intention or means to fulfil it, or violating
basic standards of honesty in dealing with others. Most states recognize what is called
"implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" which is breached by acts of bad faith,
for which a lawsuit may be brought (filed) for the breach (just as one might sue for breach
9
of contract)
The concept of Constructive notice or the finding that a respondent "knew or should have
known" about a trademark, or wilful blindness, as a basis for finding bad faith
Constructive notice - American law concept. Not included per se in the UDRP practice. It depends
on certain circumstances such as the location of the complainant in US or owning a trademark
registered in US
Relevant cases: Sterling Jewelers Inc. v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc. and Domain Traffic, WIPO Case
No. D2002-0772, <jaredjewelry.com>, Transfer
The Sportsman's Guide, Inc. v. Modern Limited, Cayman Islands, WIPO Case No. D2003-0305,
<sportsmenguide.com>, Transfer
Champion Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Nokta Internet Technologies, WIPO Case No. D20060128, <wunr.com>, Transfer
PC Mall, Inc v. NWPCMALL LLC, WIPO Case No. D2007-0420, <nwpcmall.com>, Denial
7
S. Ghimpu, Gh. Brehoi, Gh. Mocanu, A. Popescu i I. Urs, Dicionar juridic, Editura Albatros, Bucureti,
1985
8
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2008
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/bad+faith
42
American Funds Distributors, Inc. v. Domain Administration Limited, WIPO Case No. D20070950, <amercanfunds.com>, Transfer
The Fragrance Foundation Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates, WIPO Case No.
D2008-0982, <fragrancefoundation.com>, Transfer
Kellwood Company v. Onesies Corporation, WIPO Case No. D2008-1172, <onesies.net>, Denial
Aspenwood Dental Associates, Inc. v. Thomas Wade, WIPO Case No. D2009-0675,
<coloradodentalimplantcenter.com>, Denial
"Knew or Should Have Known": Some panels have in certain circumstances found bad faith
registration based in part on proof that the respondent "knew or should have known" about the
existence of the complainant's trademark (other than through the above-mentioned US concept of
constructive notice). This may be seen as an instance of the panel attributing readily obtainable
knowledge to a respondent even if the respondent avers that it did not have the be well-known or
in wide use on the Internet or otherwise at the time the domain name was registered, or when a
respondent's denial of knowledge is otherwise highly improbable.
Some panels have applied a related concept of "constructive knowledge" in particular
circumstances, notably where a respondent has acquired a domain name through a process of
automated bulk transfer of domain names. Some panels have adopted this approach on the back of
paragraph 2 of the UDRP which puts some burden on registrants where it states: "It is your
responsibility to determine whether your domain name registration infringes or violates someone
else's rights." Other panels have observed that unless some level of constructive knowledge is
recognized, automated transfers will represent a blanket defence to bad faith.
Relevant cases: The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. v. H. Pouran, WIPO Case No. D2002-0770,
<nasdaqtoday.com> inter alia, Transfer, Caesars World, Inc. v. Forum LLC., WIPO Case
No. D2005-0517, <caesarspalacepoker.com>, Transfer, Maori Television Service v. Damien
Sampat, WIPO Case No. D2005-0524, <maoritv.com>, Transferuwe GMbH v. Telepathy, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0261, <uwe.com>, Rejected F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Transure
Enterprise Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2008-0422, <wwwroche.com>, Transfer, Decal (Depositi
Costieri Calliope) S.p.A. v. Gregory Ricks, WIPO Case No. D2008-0585, <decal.com>, rejected,
Collective Media, Inc. v. CKV / COLLECTIVEMEDIA.COM, WIPO Case No. D2008-0641,
<collectivemedia.com>, Rejected , Hero v. The Heroic Sandwich, WIPO Case No. D2008-0779,
<hero.com>.
Willful Blindness: Some panels have applied a concept of willful blindness in UDRP cases as a
basis for finding bad faith. For example, a respondent's registration of large numbers of domain
names through automated processes, with no appropriate mechanism for ascertaining whether
these may be identical or confusingly similar to such trademarks, may support a finding of bad
faith. Panels holding that a respondent must accept the consequences of turning a blind eye to any
third-party trademarks through failure to conduct adequate searches have tended to limit the
application of this principle to cases in which the respondent is a professional domain name
registrant, or has been found to have engaged in a pattern of abusive registration and use of
domain names identical or confusingly similar to trademarks (although some panels have also
noted that, in theory, such general principle may be just as applicable to non-professional domain
name registrants, who, after all, are also subject to paragraph 2 of the UDRP, which provides: "It
is your responsibility to determine whether your domain name registration infringes or violates
someone.
Relevant cases: Media General Communications, Inc. v. Rarenames, WebReg, WIPO Case
No. D2006-0964, <wcmh.com>, Transfer, HSBC Finance Corporation v. Clear Blue Sky Inc. and
43
Domain
Manager,
WIPO Case
No. D2007-0062,
<creditkeeper.com>,
Transfer,
Grundfos A/S v. Texas International Property Associates, WIPO Case No. D2007-1448,
<groundfos.com>, Transfer, General Electric Company v. Marketing Total S.A, WIPO Case
No. D2007-1834, <gegeneralelectric.com> inter alia, Transfer,Terroni Inc. v. Gioacchino Zerbo,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0666, <terroni.com>, Transfer, Compart AG v. Compart.com / Vertical
Axis, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2009-0462, <compart.com>, Transfer, The Law Society v.
RareNames WebReg / Rarenames, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2009-0720, <thelawsociety.com>,
Transfer, Tata Communications International Pte Ltd (f/k/a VSNL International Pte Ltd) v.
Portmedia Inc. / TRUEROOTS.COM c/o Nameview Inc. Whois, WIPO Case No. D2010-0217,
<trueroots.com>, Rejected, with dissenting opinion
Some panels have found that in certain circumstances there may be an affirmative obligation on
registrants more generally to make reasonable good faith efforts to avoid registering and
using a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a mark held by others, for
example, through an Internet search on the domain name through Google or Yahoo!. with regard
to paragraph 2 of the UDRP, and representations and warranties there-under.
Relevant cases: Aspen Holdings Inc. v. Rick Natsch, Potrero Media Corporation, WIPO Case
No. D2009-0776,
<firstquote.org>,Transfer
BzzAgent, Inc. v. bzzaget.com c/o Nameview Inc. Whois IDentity Shield and Vertical Axis,
WIPO CaseNo. D2010-1187,<bzzaget.com>,Transfer
Mile, Inc. v. Michael Burg, WIPO Case No. D2010-2011, <lionsden.com
Does the renewal of the registration of a domain name amount to a registration for the
purposes of determining whether the domain name was registered in bad faith?
While the transfer of a domain name to a third party does amount to a new registration, a mere
renewal of a domain name has not generally been treated as a new registration for the purpose of
assessing bad faith. Registration in bad faith must normally occur at the time the current registrant
took possession of the domain name. (Movement of a domain name registration from one privacy
or proxy service to another may in certain circumstances constitute evidence of a new registration
for this purpose.) Panels have tended to the view that formal changes in registration data are not
necessarily deemed to constitute a new registration where evidence clearly establishes an
unbroken chain of underlying ownership by a single entity or within a genuine conglomerate, and
it is clear that any change in WhoIs registrant data is not being made to conceal an underlying
owner's identity for the purpose of frustrating assessment of liability in relation to registration or
use of the domain name.
Relevant cases: Substance Abuse Management, Inc. v. Screen Actors Modesl [sic] International,
Inc. (SAMI), WIPO Case No. D2001-0782, <sami.com>, Denial , PAA Laboratories GmbH v.
Printing Arts America, WIPO Case No. D2004-0338, <paa.com>, Denial, BMEzine.com, LLC. v.
Gregory Ricks / Gee Whiz Domains Privacy Service, WIPO Case No. D2008-0882, <bme.com>,
Transfer,Surcouf v. Shen Kaixin, WIPO Case No. D2009-0407, <surcouf.net>, Transfer,Intellogy
Solutions, LLC v. Craig Schmidt and IntelliGolf, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2009-1244,
<intellogy.com>, Denial
However, relying in part on paragraph 2 of the UDRP which expressly references the
representations made at the time of renewal, a small number of panels have begun to consider the
renewal of a domain name as equivalent to a new registration in certain circumstances, including
where it is found that: the registrant changed its use of the domain name prior to renewal; such use
44
amounts to textbook cybersquatting; and the registrant nevertheless proceeded to renew the
domain name registration with intent to benefit from its inclusion of the complainant's trademark.
Relevant case: Eastman Sporto Group LLC v. Jim and Kenny, WIPO Case No. D2009-1688,
<sporto.com>, Transfer
In the case of a purchase by one party from another of a portfolio or batch of domain names, these
would, consistent with the change in control over the names, normally be regarded as new
registrations for the purpose of the UDRP, whereby the relevant intent of the acquiring party is to
be assessed as at the date of acquisition of the relevant portfolio or batch of domain names.
4.2. Bad faith use
The meaning of the term use does not necessarily imply effective use.
Three out of the four elements which indicate bad faith do not require a per se use, such as it is
defined in common language. Many administrative panels have found bad faith even in the
absence of an effective use of the domain name, and even in the absence of an active website.
Relevant cases:
World Wrestling Federation, Inc. v. Bosman (worldwrestlingfederation.com) D99-0001, the Panel
found that an offer to sell represents a use of the domain name, even if it is the only use of the
domain name.
In Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows (telstra.org) D2000-0003 , the
Administrative Panel interpreted the term use in such a wide manner that it includes inactive
use. In this sense, the Administrative Panel found: "[P]paragraph 4(b) recognises that the action
(passive holding of a domain name) in relation to the registration of a domain name may in some
circumstances represent a bad faith use of the domain name. A combined set of factors such as
the strong nature of the trademark, lack of evidence, attempts on behalf of the Respondent to
conceal its identity as well as indicating false contact details has lead the Administrative Panel in
concluding that there has not been an active plausible use which might constitute as legitimate.
Non active use of the domain name, which the Respondent has not attempted to sell or to contact
the trademark owner (passive ownership).
Bad faith use at the moment the UDRP procedure was started?
Relevant case: In Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Gully (ingersoll-rand.net, ingersoll-rand.org,
ingersollrand.org) D2000-0021, the Administrative Panel: If at any moment, after the
registration, the domain name is used in bad faith, the bad faith usage can be contested."
Consensus view: With comparative reference to the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the
UDRP deemed to establish bad faith registration and use, panels have found that the apparent lack
of so-called active use (e.g., to resolve to a website) of the domain name without any active
attempt to sell or to contact the trademark holder (passive holding), does not as such prevent a
finding of bad faith. The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine
whether the respondent is acting in bad faith. Examples of what may be cumulative circumstances
found to be indicative of bad faith include the complainant having a well-known trademark, no
response to the complaint having been filed, and the registrant's concealment of its identity.
Panels may draw inferences about whether the domain name was used in bad faith given the
circumstances surrounding registration, and vice versa.
45
Some panels have also found that the concept of passive holding may apply even in the event of
sporadic use, or of the mere "parking" by a third party of a domain name (irrespective of whether
the latter should also result in the generation of incidental revenue from advertising referrals.
Relevant cases: Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D20000003,<telstra.org>,Transfer
Jupiters Limited v. Aaron Hall, WIPO Case No. D2000-0574, <jupiterscasino.com> inter alia,
Transfer Ladbroke Group Plc v. Sonoma International LDC, WIPO Case No. D2002-0131,
<ladbrokespoker.com>
inter
alia,
Transfer
Westdev Limited v. Private Data, WIPO Case No. D2007-1903, <numberone.com>, Transfer
Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393,
<maybank.com>,Transfer Intel Corporation v. The Pentium Group, WIPO Case
What is the role of a disclaimer on the web page of a disputed domain name?
Consensus view: The existence of a disclaimer cannot by itself cure bad faith, when bad faith has
been established by other factors. This is typically explained by UDRP panels with reference to
the probability of Internet user "initial interest confusion" - by the time such user reaches and
reads any disclaimer under the domain name, any registrant objective of attracting visitors for
financial advantage to its website through use of the trademark in the domain name will generally
have been achieved. A disclaimer can also show that the respondent had prior knowledge of the
complainant's trademark. However a disclaimer, especially if it is sufficiently clear and
prominent, may sometimes be found to support other factors indicating good faith or legitimate
interest.
Relevant cases: Este Lauder Inc. v. estelauder.com, estelauder.net and Jeff Hanna, WIPO Case
No. D2000-0869,
<estelauder.com>
inter
alia,
Transfer
Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Limited v. Dejan Macesic, WIPO Case No. D2000-1698,
<guiness.com>,Transfer
Besiktas Jimnastik Kulubu Dernegi v. Mehmet Tolga Avcioglu, WIPO Case No. D2003-0035,
<besiktas.com>,Denial
Pliva, Inc. v. Eric Kaiser, WIPO Case No. D2003-0316, <antabuse.net>, Transfer
AARC
Inc.
v.
Jayashankar
Balaraman,
WIPO Case
No. D2007-0578,
<advanceamericacash.net>,Transfer
Broan-Nutone,
LLC
v.
Ready
Set
Sales,
WIPO Case
No. D2010-0920,
<broanreplacementparts.com> inter alia, Transfer
Can statements made in settlement discussions be relevant to showing bad faith?
Consensus view: Evidence of offers to sell the domain name are generally admissible under the
UDRP, and is often used to show bad faith. This is so both in relation to offers by a respondent to
sell made prior to a complainant's filing of a UDRP complaint, or after such filing. The latter takes
account of the fact that cybersquatters often wait until a trademark holder launches a complaint
before asking for payment. The legal criteria for showing bad faith directly specify that an offer
for sale can be evidence of bad faith, and panels are competent to decide whether settlement
discussions represent a good faith effort to compromise or a bad faith effort to extort.
Relevant cases: CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Gaddoor Saidi, WIPO Case No. D2000-0243,
<cbs.org>,Transfer
Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr., WIPO Case No. D20001525,
<magnumpiering.com>
inter
alia,
Transfer
Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. v Marcellod Russo, WIPO Case No. D2001-1049,
<vogueaustralia.com>,Transfer
46
McMullan Bros., Limited, Maxol Limited, Maxol Direct Limited Maxol Lubricants Limited,
Maxol Oil Limited Maxol Direct (NI) Limited v. Web Names Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2004-0078,
<maxol.com>,Transfer
NB Trademarks, Inc. v. Domain Privacy LTD and Abadaba S.A., WIPO Case No. D2008-1984,
<aliensport.com>,Transfer
The South African Football Association (SAFA) v. Fairfield Tours (Pty) Ltd, WIPO Case
No. D2009-0998, <bafanabafana.com>, Transfer
Can third party or "automatically" generated material appearing on a website form a basis
for finding bad faith?
Panels have found that a domain name registrant will normally be deemed responsible for content
appearing on a website at its domain name, even if such registrant may not be exercising direct
control over such content - for example, in the case of advertising links appearing on an
"automatically" generated basis. It would normally be sufficient to show that profit or
"commercial gain" was made by a third party, such as by the operator of an advertising revenue
arrangement applicable to the registrant, or a domain name parking service used by the registrant.
Reasons may include that a rights holder should be able to rely on the registrant for enforcement
purposes, or that such registrant has undertaken not to infringe third party rights in its registration
agreement (see paragraph 2 of the UDRP).
Relevant cases: Shangri-La International Hotel Management Limited v. NetIncome Ventures
Inc.,
WIPO CaseNo.D2006-1315,<shangrila.com>,Transfer
Owens Corning v. NA, WIPO Case No. D2007-1143, <pinkbatts.com>, Transfer
McDonald's
Corporation
v.
ZusCom,
WIPO Case
No.
D2007-1353,
<ronaldmcdonaldhouse.info>,Transfer
Villeroy & Boch AG v. Mario Pingerna, WIPO Case No. D2007-1912, <villeroy-boch.mobi>,
Transfer
Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Vadim Krivitsky, WIPO Case No. D2008-0396, <rolexdealer.com>,
Transfer
Systems LLC, WIPO Case No. D2009-0057, <jenniferlopez.net> inter alia, Transfer
Some panels have found that the inclusion of such advertising links may not necessarily be a basis
for finding respondent bad faith where shown to be genuinely automated, and there is no evidence
that the respondent influenced the advertising content, and the respondent credibly denies
knowledge of the complainant's trademark and there is no evidence of the respondent previously
being put on notice of such mark, and other indicia of cybersquatting are not present.
Relevant cases: Mariah Media Inc. v. First Place Internet Inc., WIPO Case No. D2006-1275,
<outside.com>, Denial
What constitutes a pattern of conduct of preventing a trademark holder from reflecting the
mark in a corresponding domain name?
Consensus view: A pattern of conduct can involve multiple UDRP cases with similar fact
situations or a single case where the respondent has registered multiple domain names which are
similar to trademarks. However the registration of two domain names in the same case is not
generally sufficient to show a pattern, nor is a single prior example of apparent bad faith domain
name registration. Although panels will generally look to the specific circumstances, a pattern
normally requires more than one relevant example.
47
Relevant cases: Home Interiors & Gifts, Inc. v. Home Interiors, WIPO Case No. D2000-0010,
<homeinteriors.net>interalia,Transfer
Telstra Corporation Limited v. Ozurls, WIPO Case No. D2001-0046, <i-telstra.com> inter alia,
Transfer.
48
Learning Unit no. 5

UDRP PROCEDURAL RULES
Table of Contents:
1. Overview

identify the UDRP procedural rules;
present the common rules applicable to all suppliers.
49
1. Overview
The procedural rules are provided in UDRP + Rules common to all suppliers (Rules) +
Supplementary rules specific to each supplier.
Procedural dispositions in UDRP Consolidation (4f), taxes (4g), procedural remedies (4i), the
effect of the procedure (4j 4k UDRP 18 rules), behaviour during the procedure (7 and 8)
UDRPs rules common to all suppliers are the following:
Rules regarding communications and procedure (2 and 4, 8 and 9)
Rules regarding the filing of a complaint (3)
Rules regarding the filing of the response to a complaint (5)
Appointment of the Panel and Timing of administrative decision (6)
Impartiality and Independence of the administrative panel (7)
General Powers of the administrative panel (10)
Procedural language (11)
Further statements requested by the administrative panel (12)
In-person hearings (13)
Default in the obligation to answer (14)
Decisions of the administrative panel (15)
Settlement or Other Grounds for Termination of the procedure (17)
Taxes (19)
Exclusion of Liability (20)
Consolidation (UDRP, 4f):
In the case of multiple disputes between you and an applicant, you or the applicant may request
the consolidation of the disputes before one Administrative Panel This request shall be made in
front of the first administrative panel appointed to decide in an unsettled dispute between the
parties. This administrative panel may consolidate any or all such disputes, at his own disposal,
under the condition that the consolidated disputes be governed by this Policy or by a later version
of this policy adopted by ICANN.
Relevant case: Las Vegas Sands, Inc. v. Red Group, WIPO Case No. D2001-1057
Consolidation may be appropriate where separate complaints against the same Respondent (or
Respondents under common ownership and control) raise related issues that, in the interests of
fairness and efficiency, should be resolved before a single Panel in a single proceeding.
Taxes (UDRP, 4g and Rules, 19):
Their payment made only by the complainant and only in the case in which the respondent opts
for a panel of three members, than the respondent must pay in equal amount the proceedings
taxes.
The sanction for not paying the taxes relinquishment of the complaint.
Procedural remedies (UDRP 4i):
- Cancellation of registration
- Transfer of registration
Other remedy requests have been rejected: WIPO Case No. D2002-0235, Telekom Austria AG v.
Reginaldo Mercatello, WIPO Case Number D2001-0957, America Online, Inc. v. Popixel Art
d/b/a America Online Latino
50
The effect of the procedure (UDRP 4j 4k Rules 18)

UDRP 4 j - Notification of the decision and its publishing.
UDRP 4 k - court proceedings, before and after the administrative procedure (desprecopii.ro)
The suspension of the effects of the administrative decision, the beginning of a procedure before
the courts of law within 10 days from the communication of the decision by the Registrator.
Effects of the procedure (Rules 18):
(a) In the event of any legal proceedings initiated prior to or during an administrative proceeding
in respect of a domain-name dispute that is the subject of the complaint, the Panel shall have the
discretion to decide whether to suspend or terminate the administrative proceeding, or to proceed
to a decision.
(b) In the event that a Party initiates any legal proceedings during the pendency of an
administrative proceeding in respect of a domain-name dispute that is the subject of the
complaint, it shall promptly notify the Panel and the Provider.
Procedural communication (Rules 2 and 8)
Communications to parties are strictly regulated.
Communications between the parties and the panel is done only through the case administrator
(Rules, 8)
Behaviour during the proceedings (UDRP 7 and 8)
7. maintaining the status quo of the Registrant
8. a. Transfers of the domain name to a new Owner
Is forbidden during the administrative procedure or within the 15 day term from the end of the
administrative procedure, as well as during court or arbitral proceedings, except the case where
the party to which the domain name is transferred accepts to be bind by the results of the
proceedings. Annulment.
8. b. Change of the registrator. Is forbidden during the administrative procedure or in the 15 day
term from the end of the administrative procedure, during court or arbitral proceedings, the
domain name still being the subject of the procedure.
Rules for submitting a complaint (3) - What must the complaint contain?
Rules for drafting a response to the complaint (5) - What must the response contain?
Appointment of the Panel and Timing of Decision (Rules 6)
(a) Each Provider shall maintain and publish a publicly available list of panellists and their
qualifications.
(b) If neither the Complainant nor the Respondent has elected a three-member Panel (Paragraphs
3(b)(iv) and 5(b)(iv)), the Provider shall appoint, within five (5) calendar days following receipt
of the response by the Provider, or the lapse of the time period for the submission thereof, a single
Panellist from its list of panellists. The fees for a single-member Panel shall be paid entirely by
the Complainant.
(c) If either the Complainant or the Respondent elects to have the dispute decided by a threemember Panel, the Provider shall appoint three Panellists in accordance with the procedures
identified in Paragraph 6(e). The fees for a three-member Panel shall be paid in their entirety by
the Complainant, except where the election for a three-member Panel was made by the
Respondent, in which case the applicable fees shall be shared equally between the Parties.
(d) Unless it has already elected a three-member Panel, the Complainant shall submit to the
Provider, within five (5) calendar days of communication of a response in which the Respondent
elects a three-member Panel, the names and contact details of three candidates to serve as one of
51
the Panellists. These candidates may be drawn from any ICANN-approved Provider's list of
panellists.
(e) In the event that either the Complainant or the Respondent elects a three-member Panel, the
Provider shall endeavour to appoint one Panellist from the list of candidates provided by each of
the Complainant and the Respondent. In the event the Provider is unable within five (5) calendar
days to secure the appointment of a Panellist on its customary terms from either Party's list of
candidates, the Provider shall make that appointment from its list of panellists. The third Panellist
shall be appointed by the Provider from a list of five candidates submitted by the Provider to the
Parties, the Provider's selection from among the five being made in a manner that reasonably
balances the preferences of both Parties, as they may specify to the Provider within five (5)
calendar days of the Provider's submission of the five-candidate list to the Parties.
(f) Once the entire Panel is appointed, the Provider shall notify the Parties of the Panellists
appointed and the date by which, absent exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall forward its
decision on the complaint to the Provider.
Impartiality and Independence of the administrative panel (Rules, 7)
It is verified before appointment and continues to maintain as an obligation even after
appointment.
Signing the independence and impartiality declaration by the members of the
administrative panel is done prior to being appointed.
Significance of independence and impartiality
General Powers of the Panel (Rules, 10)
(a) The Panel shall conduct the administrative proceeding in such manner as it considers
appropriate in accordance with the Policy and these Rules.
(b) In all cases, the Panel shall ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party
is given a fair opportunity to present its case.
(c) The Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition. It
may, at the request of a Party or on its own motion, extend, in exceptional cases, a period of time
fixed by these Rules or by the Panel.
(d) The Panel shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence.
Relevant cases:
- Contradicting evidence - WIPO Case No. D2008-0598, Ustream.TV, Inc. v. Vertical Axis, Inc
- Admissible evidence- WIPO Case No D2009-0998 The South African Football Association
(SAFA) v. Fairfield Tours (Pty) Ltd
- Inadmissible evidence - WIPO Case No. D2004-0519 Barclays Bank PLC v. Robert Cutler
- On-line archives as evidence - WIPO Case No. D2007-1438 The iFranchise Group v. Jay Bean /
MDNH, Inc. / Moniker Privacy Services [23658]
(e) A Panel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in
accordance with the Policy and these Rules.
Language of Proceedings (Rules. 11)
Criteria for the administrative panel to decide as follows:
The complainant's request for a certain language of the procedure motivated by factual
elements
the correspondence between the parties in the respective language, content of the website
lack of objections on behalf of the respondent with regards to a request of the Complainant
for a certain language accentuated recently, lack of response lack of objections.
Language of the proceedings (Rules, 11) - language of the registration agreement
The administrative panel may decide otherwise. Total discretion? No.
52
Relevant cases: Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl, WIPO Case No. DCC2006-0004 and Aktiebolaget
Electrolux v. TREND MEDYA GRUP, WIPO Case No. D2010-1508, the Administrative Panel
has the discretion to decide the language of the procedure in accordance with the circumstances of
the case
Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. SC Agis International Sport S.R.L.WIPO Case No. DRO2006-0001
Further Statements (Rules 12)
a) if requested by the Administrative panels
Relevant case: WIPO Case No. D2008-0754, Metro Sportswear Limited (trading as
Canada Goose) v. Vertical Axis Inc. and Canadagoose.com c/o Whois Identity Shield
b) unsolicited by the Administrative panels
Relevant case: WIPO Case No. D2008-0193 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Larus H. List
c) admissible
Relevant case: WIPO Case No. D2005-1323 Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v.
HLP General Partners Inc.
d) inadmissible
Relevant case: WIPO Case No. D2006-0647, Ontos AG v. Ontos Institute, Antony Arcari
In-person hearings (Rule 13) are permitted only on an exceptional basis
The nonfulfillment by the Respondent of the obligation to respond Default (Rule14) the
discretionary power of the administrative panel to take the answer into account.
Relevant case: WIPO Case No. D2005-0485 AIB-Vincotte Belgium ASBL, AIB-Vincotte USA
Inc./Corporation Texas v. Guillermo Lozada, Jr.
Settlement or Other Grounds for Termination (Rules, 17)
Relevant cases: WIPO Case No. D2009-0091 Grundfos A/S v. Luca Mueller, WIPO Case No.
D2007-1672 LAERDAL MEDICAL CORPORATION v. V. Lee
53

Alternative Dispute Resolution PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alternative Dispute Resolution PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beatrice Onica-Jarka

Alternative dispute resolution

EDITURA UNIVERSITII NICOLAE TITULESCU

Acest material este destinat uzului studenilor, forma de nvmnt la distan.

UNIVERSITATEA NICOLAE TITULESCU DIN BUCURETI

Alternative dispute resolution

Editura Universitii Nicolae Titulescu

1. Beatrice Onica Jarka, ARE THE DECISIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL BODIES IN

This course encompasses 5 learning units.

Average time for individual study

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Learning Unit no. 1

Learning Unit no. 2

1.4. Application of the peaceful settlement of disputes principle

2. ADR mechanisms in international private law

Learning Unit no. 3

Learning Unit no. 4

Learning Unit no. 5

Learning Unit no. 1

Learning Unit Objectives

1. Defining the notion of alternative dispute resolution (ADR)

3.3. Enquiry - general characteristics

Learning Unit no. 2

1.4. Application of the peaceful settlement of disputes principle

Learning Unit Objectives

1. ADR mechanisms within the international public law

1.4. Application of the peaceful settlement of disputes principle

The third party is accepted by all

Good offices of the US

The third party accepted by all the

Pope Mediation in the

The FF commission establishes the

Incident from Dogger Bank

The conciliator establishes the

1.5.2. Arbitration as judicial method

B. The Parties role in arbitration

the conduct of proceedings,

Arbitral Award content, cancelation procedure and enforcement

Learning Unit no. 3

Learning Unit Objectives

1. Domain-name notion and characteristic on the internet

Issues related to court settlement:

2.2. UDRP adoption

The ICANN Board adopts a resolution referring the recommendations of chapter 3

A group of registrars submits a "Model Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

The ICANN Board accepts the DNSO recommendation for establishment of a

24 October The ICANN Board approves the implementation documents, as revised in

First dispute-resolution service provider (World Intellectual Property Organization-WIPO) approved.

Second dispute-resolution service provider (National Arbitration Forum--NAF)

Third dispute-resolution service provider (Disputes.org/eResolution consortium-DeC) approved.

First day for submission of complaints to the dispute-resolution providers for

14 January First proceeding (worldwrestlingfederation.com) decided.

16 October Approval of the Disputes.org/eResolution consortium as a dispute-resolution

eResolution ceases accepting proceedings.

Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre begins accepting proceedings.

2.3. UDRP services providers

Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre

The Czech Arbitration Court Arbitration Center for Internet Disputes

Arab Center for Domain Name Dispute Resolution (ACDR)

2.4. UDRP Procedural rules and Supplemental procedural rules

2.5. UDRP limitations, effects and advantages

Learning Unit no. 4

Learning Unit Objectives