2014 01 18 Rethinking the Domain Name Dispute Resolution in the Era of New gTLDs

EmmanuelGILLET,PhD 2014ADNDRCConference

TeachingFellow,TheHongKongPolytechnicUniversity

RethinkingDomainNameDisputeResoluJonintheEraofNewgTLDs

KualaLumpur,18thJanuary2014

RethinkingDomainNameDisputesResoluJonintheEraofNewgTLDsè NotableProceduralIssuesinUDRP

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | 2014 Emmanuel GILLET

ìRethinkingDomainNameDisputesResoluJonintheEraofNewgTLDsè NotableProceduralIssuesinUDRP

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

New“g”TLDS+IDNs+IPV6=

EndlesspossibiliJesforcybersquaWers

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

1.TheFailureofDNDisputeResoluJonMechanisms

FighJngCybersqua_ng!

StatementofAccount…

≈40.000UDRPdecisions+ccTLDsrelateddecisions } 14years

70%WIPODecisionsàTransfergranted

Source:wipo.int

SuccessorFailure?

SuccessorFailure.?

SuccessorRethink.?

2.SignificantProceduralEvoluJons2.1.ImprovementsMadebyPanelists2.2.ImprovementsMadebyRegistries

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

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

2.SignificantProceduralEvoluJons2.2.ImprovementsMadebyRegistries2.2.1.MediaJon

Source:Nom

inet.org.uk

2.SignificantProceduralEvoluJons2.2.ImprovementsMadebyRegistries2.2.2.Appeal

Source:Nom

inet.org.uk

2.SignificantProceduralEvoluJons2.2.ImprovementsMadebyRegistries

UDRPàccTLDsDRP

ccTLDsDRPàUDRP

2.SignificantProceduralEvoluJons2.2.ImprovementsMadebyRegistries2.2.3.Fees

UDRPandJusJce

§  Blindfold§  Scale§  Sword

NoswordàNoLegalriskNoLegalRiskàNodissuasionNoDissuasion/ThreatàNoJusJce

1stconcepJon 2ndConcepJon

Eachpartypaysitsownfees Thelosingpartypaysthefees

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

Source:wipo.int

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

3.GoingFurther:ConsolidaJoninCasesofMulJpleTLDs

gTLDs ccTLDs NewTLDs

SheraWon.info CheraWon.be Sheraton.berlin

Sherraton.com SheraWton.za Sheraton.bzh

Etc. Etc. Etc.

3.GoingFurther:ConsolidaJoninCasesofMulJpleTLDs

gTLDs ccTLDs NewTLDs

SheraWon.info CheraWon.be Sheraton.berlin

Sherraton.com SheraWton.za Sheraton.bzh

5differentprocedures+potenJally5disputeresoluJonproviders

4.GatheringGoodIdeasinOnePlace

ìCurrentSituaJon

ìGoal

5.TowardsArbitraJon?

UDRPandCo.≠ArbitraJon

5.TowardsArbitraJon?

Advantages Risks ControllingtheRisks

NewYorkConvenJon(149signatories(1))

Expensive

Enforcementtorecoverthecosts

(evendamages)

Delay Fast-TrackArbitraJon(controllingJmeandcosts)

Possibilitytoappeal(3arbitrators)

Noneedtogotocourts

(1)18January2014

Thankyou

email mail@egillet.com

blog hWp://egillet.com

2014 01 18 Rethinking the Domain Name Dispute Resolution in the Era of New gTLDs

Law

Transcript of 2014 01 18 Rethinking the Domain Name Dispute Resolution in the Era of New gTLDs

The New gTLDs - · PDF filep2 Context The ‘New gTLDs’ (generic top-level domains) provide the Internet with its largest ever transformation. Security issues with previous and

here - ICANN New gTLDs

gTLDs around the globe

Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of ......Jan 18, 2014 · Rethinking Domain Name Disputes ResoluJon in the Era of New gTLDs ì è Notable Procedural Issues in

New Opportunities with New gTLDs

Onboarding guide for new gTLDs operated by Afnic - .fr · PDF fileONBOARDING GUIDE FOR NEW GTLDS OPERATED BY AFNIC – July 23. rd, 2013. 3 . Association Française pour le Nommage

SXSW: How New gTLDs Will Change the Web - Rob Garner - iCrossing

Delegation Rate Scenarios For New gTLDs - ICANN...Delegation Rate Scenarios for New gTLDs – Oct 2010 Page 5 The volume estimate, the time to process applications of different degrees

Protecting Your Business Trademarks When New gTLDs Launch ...€¦ · Protecting Your Business Trademarks When New gTLDs Launch - With Jan Corstens ... to become a successful domain

Prep Mock Opportunities & Challenges of New gTLDs

ICANN and New gTLDs: A Brand Owner’s Perspective

HYDERABAD – New gTLDs - Issues for Subsequent Roundsschd.ws/hosted_files/icann572016/f1/I57 HYD_Sat05Nov2016-New gT… · HYDERABAD – New gTLDs - Issues for Subsequent Rounds

University of New Hampshire · 2018-02-08 · indicating gTLDs. Part V details how the new gTLDs are currently being analyzed in domain name dispute resolution procedures, and it

UNLIMITED NEW GTLDS and TRADE-MARK PROTECTION · UNLIMITED NEW GTLDS and TRADE-MARK PROTECTION Jonathan C. Cohen 4/7 new gTLD registry agreements, which would in turn bind registrars

ICANN 51: Update on Next Round of gTLDs

gTLDs – The quiet Internet revolution

New gTLDs between two rounds: trade mark challenges

New gTLDs: Answers to Key Questions - Crowell & Moring · PDF fileWashington, DC New York San Francisco Los Angeles Orange County Anchorage London Brussels New gTLDs: Answers to Key

RETHINKING INVESTMENT DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM …

RealHosting seminar 13/feb/2014 new gTLDs