This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
UDRP


Aſt er November 20, when ICANN closed a request for information (RFI), under which prospective arbitrators had to submit their best off ers for managing the URS, we may all know more.


WIPO, as the leading UDRP provider, would be an obvious choice to manage the URS. But Roache-Turner says WIPO did not submit responses to the RFI. .


Review and report


While the shape and management of the URS is far from crystal clear, one thing is more transparent: the URS and UDRP will both be reviewed and possibly reformed in the next few years. In December 2011, the council of the Generic Names Supporting Organization, which recommends policies aff ecting gTLDs, ruled that 18 months aſt er the fi rst new domains go live (expected to be April 2013), ICANN staff must submit a report on the state of the URS and UDRP, as well as other RPMs. T is report typically leads to a so-called policy development process, which oſt en is slow and incorporates public comments and analysis. A revised UDRP may not, if it does at all, materialise for at least another three or four years.


“IT IS HARD TO ASSESS WHETHER THE ‘MASSIVE’ EXPANSION OF THE DNS WILL LEAD TO A CORRESPONDING RISE IN UDRP FILINGS.”


ICANN opened it up for comprehensive revision, there is also a very real risk that this functioning mechanism could be watered down or become over-burdened, as has happened in some respects with the URS as it made its way through various ICANN processes.


“To the extent that there would be any changes in future, contained changes of a more procedural or targeted nature—designed to increase effi ciency and clarity—may be preferable. Broad-based revision would likely prove highly contentious and may disrupt the careful design balance that the UDRP represents,” says Roache-Turner.


Unsurprisingly, WIPO is wary of these attempts to tinker with what it sees as a successful and reliable process.


“While any legal system can be improved, it is also important to remember that the UDRP has functioned remarkably well in adapting to a changing DNS over more than a decade. If


From recommending how the policy should look, to becoming the premier UDRP provider and managing more and more cases each year, WIPO acts as an important intermediary for IP owners seeking to protect their rights online. It is clear that the organisation will fi ercely resist any attempts to skew the UDRP, and will continue to promote a fair and effi cient system which, on the whole, is preferable to the money that burns deep into the pockets of rights owners when they enter the court room. 


www.worldipreview.com


Trademarks Brands and the Internet Volume 1, Issue 4


27


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