UDRP
“OUR GOAL IS ALWAYS TO IMPROVE BOTH QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY FOR OUR CLIENTS, AS WELL AS TO CONTRIBUTE POSITIVELY TO THE UDRP’S OPERATION AS A WHOLE.”
In fact, WIPO has been closely involved with the new gTLD programme for some time, advising ICANN about how trademark owners try to protect their brands online. “A major part of our work over the last few years has included providing extensive input to ICANN on the design of, and need for, new RPMs intended to better equip rights holders,” Roache-Turner says.
One RPM that WIPO already oversees, the legal rights objection, allows trademark owners to complain about applications that
infringe their marks. Te objection period is open until March 2013, but WIPO has received no complaints so far.
at the Center. “We have worked hard to build in the processing efficiencies and safeguards that we need in order to absorb this kind of sustained increase.
“Evolving IT systems and support are naturally a big part of that for us. Having the right people on the job—a committed team of professionals who understand what the UDRP is all about—has also been essential,” he says.
To make things easier for parties, called
complainants and respondents in UDRP cases, WIPO is working on a “significant upgrade” of its online filing system, says Roache-Turner. “Our goal is always to improve both quality and efficiency for our clients, as well as to contribute positively to the UDRP’s operation as a whole.”
Tis assistance follows WIPO’s move to an online, paperless UDRP filing system in 2009 which, Roache-Turner says, goes some way to explaining why filings are increasing year on year, with the UDRP becoming a more efficient and attractive alternative to the courts.
But a more streamlined filing system cannot, on its own, explain why brand-owning complainants are increasingly flocking to WIPO. “Tere are probably many reasons,” Roache-Turner says.
Tese reasons may include that brands are being increasingly vigilant about alleged abuse online; that they are making more money from online sales— and taking the defence of their domain names more seriously; that they increasingly believe that the UDRP, more than a decade old, is a reliable system; and that
precedents about the UDRP now, before the new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) go live next year.
On this final point, ICANN hopes to begin processing the first of about 1,400 domains in the
26
second quarter of 2013. Despite the availability of several rights protection mechanisms (RPMs), many brands fear that such a dramatic increase in the DNS will be matched by a dramatic surge in egregious behaviour online.
Against this backdrop of trepidation, Roache-Turner says it is hard to assess whether the “massive” expansion of the DNS will lead to a corresponding rise in UDRP filings—and therefore a greater workload for the Center.
“If you look at the approximately 1,400 unique new gTLDs, it is notable that brand owners have applied for almost half of these, with around 500 intended to be run on ‘open registration’ [open to consumers] models. Tis is where the principal risk of cybersquatting will lie.
“Many factors will affect cybersquatting levels, including the demand for registrations within individual new domains. But how realistic is it to expect that hundreds of new ‘open registration’ domains would somehow not lead to an increase in cybersquatting? Whether this would necessarily translate into a corresponding rise in UDRP complaints is a different question, and here much may turn on the extent to which affected trademark owners would be prepared to continue investing already-stretched enforcement budgets into curative relief in the new domains.”
they are trying to obtain some useful
Either way, Roache-Turner says, WIPO will be prepared for such an increase. Te new gTLDs may be a new concept to a layperson, but for an organisation such as WIPO, so closely involved with ICANN and its processes, there has been time to prepare for gTLDs. Roache-Turner says the Center will continue to improve its systems and refine its resources to maintain an “effective and committed” team, if required.
Trademarks Brands and the Internet Volume 1, Issue 4
A second RPM is the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS), designed to tackle clear-cut cases of cybersquatting quickly. In its attempts to find someone to manage the system, which will co-exist with the UDRP, ICANN has struggled. Tis is mainly because it wants someone to maintain the URS for between $300 and $500 per case. To put this in context, the cost of filing a single complaint at WIPO that is overseen by a single panellist is $1,500.
WIPO, which has written extensively to ICANN about the URS, remains wary of the path ahead, as Roache-Turner explains.
“Te current URS model is considerably more complicated than the UDRP, with a higher standard of proof and multiple enforcement layers, but for a lesser remedy. It requires experts even in default cases, while also including an option for defaulting respondents to re-open, as well as to appeal, decided cases for a reversible remedy of suspension of a domain. Of course, the operation and level of demand for such a system remains to be seen. But purely in terms of its design and feasibility for responsible implementation, there is a real question of how realistic it would be to expect any responsible, experienced provider to be able to offer such a system sustainably, at a price of around a third of the cost of the UDRP.
“Competition can sometimes be a healthy thing, especially if there is real competition among quality providers prepared to invest responsibly in the system. But there can also be a real risk of a race to the bottom, especially if the relationship between the complexity of the system and the price is unrealistic. WIPO has consistently proposed that ICANN adopts a simpler, more streamlined URS system with
appropriate
registrant safeguards, which we believe might be responsibly operated closer to the target price point,” he says.
Whether the ICANN community ever adopts such a model, on the other hand, remains an open question.
www.worldipreview.com
they believe
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52