WIPO Mediation, Arbitration and Expert Determination
The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center has administered some 500 mediation, arbitration and expert determination (together, WIPO ADR) cases. As the table covering the period 2009-2016 shows, most of these cases have been filed in recent years.
WIPO ADR cases were predominately based on contract clauses; however some cases were submitted to WIPO ADR as a result of a submission agreement concluded after the dispute had arisen (some of these following WIPO Good Offices as described below). Some 40% of the mediation, arbitration and expedited arbitration cases filed with the WIPO Center included an escalation clause providing for WIPO mediation followed, in the absence of a settlement, by WIPO arbitration or expedited arbitration.
2013: excluding LRO expert determination cases
Types of Disputes
WIPO ADR cases usually arise in the context of the following types of agreements: licensing agreements (e.g., trademarks, patents, copyright, software), research and development agreements, technology transfer agreements, distribution agreements, franchising agreements, Information Technology agreements, joint venture agreements, consultancy agreements, artistic production finance agreements, art marketing agreements, TV distribution rights, as well as cases arising out of agreements in settlement of prior court litigation.
Parties to WIPO ADR cases include large and small and medium sized companies across industries and sectors, artists and inventors, R&D centers, universities, producers and collecting societies.
Parties to WIPO ADR cases so far were based in different jurisdictions, including: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Belize, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Japan, Malaysia, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Romania, the Russian Federation, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
Venue and Languages
The most common venues of WIPO ADR proceedings have included: France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
WIPO ADR proceedings have been conducted in several languages that include: Chinese, English, French, German, Italian, Korean, Portuguese and Spanish.
Amounts in dispute in WIPO ADR cases have varied from USD 15,000 to 1 billion.
The remedies claimed in arbitration proceedings have included: damages, infringement declarations and specific performance, such as a declaration of non-performance of contractual obligations, or of infringement of rights, further safeguards for the preservation of confidentiality of evidence, the provision of a security, the production of data, the delivery of goods and the conclusion of new contracts.
WIPO Good Offices
The WIPO Center regularly provides procedural guidance to parties in order to facilitate their direct settlement, or the submission of their existing dispute to WIPO ADR.
The WIPO Center has assisted parties in over 250 "Good Offices" requests (some of these are followed by WIPO ADR proceedings) that have involved parties based in different jurisdictions from all regions of the world.
WIPO Domain Name Administrative Dispute Resolution Procedures
The number of cases administered by WIPO under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) procedures exceeds 36,000. Together, these administrative proceedings have involved parties from 177 countries and some 66,000 Internet domain names. The WIPO Center makes available full statistics about domain name filings, outcomes and geographical distribution of parties.
The UDRP applies primarily to international domains such as .com, .net, .org, .xyz, .top, and .win. In addition, 76 country code top-level domains (ccTLDs) have now appointed the WIPO Center as service provider for their domain name disputes.
Apart from UDRP cases the WIPO Center has administered over 15,000 cases under Sunrise policies relating to registrations in the start-up phase of new domains, as well as 69 cases filed under the ICANN Legal Rights Objection (LRO) mechanism for new gTLDs.