World Intellectual Property Organization

[cctlds-comments] WIPO ccTLD Best Practices

  To: cctlds.mail@wipo.int
  Subject: [cctlds-comments] WIPO ccTLD Best Practices
  From: "United Kingdom Patent Office in consultation with the Department of Trade and Industry" < jeff.watson@patent.gov.uk>
  Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:39:20 +0200

 

Name: Jeff Watson
Organization: The Patent Office
Position: Senior Policy Advisor
Appropriate and up-to-date contact details (WHOIS) need to be
available to intellectual property owners or their agents so that they can protect their 
rights against infringement. However we recognise that ccTLD registries may 
need to amend their terms and conditions to meet this requirement, and they 
will also need to take account of local privacy laws in making such information 
available.
We recognise the importance of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and in 
particular how effectively it has been applied to deal with domain name 
disputes under the UDRP. We agree with the principle that any ccTLD dispute 
resolution model should meet certain minimum requirements based on those 
adopted for the UDRP. This approach should both ensure that ccTLDs meet 
international norms when dealing with disputes and have the flexibility to 
allow for any local requirements.
We note that under the UDRP there has been considerable debate
regarding the number and choice of panelists to deal with disputes. We believe it is 
important that the UDRP and equivalent procedures are both objective and seen 
to be objective, and question of panelists is critical to this perception. 
Whilst restricting the panel to one member should minimise the cost and 
maximise the efficiency of the procedure, it can call into question the 
objectivity of procedure. Perhaps the "strike-out" approach is worth 
considering where the parties are provided with a list of panelists (three or 
five) and each party is allowed to "strike-out" (one or two names) from this 
list before the single panelist is selected. This approach could improve the 
perceived objectivity of the procedure and perhaps would not add significantly 
to the administrative burden.
Submitted on behalf of the UK Patent Office in consultation with the
Department of Trade and Industry.

 


Back to Browse Comments for WIPO ccTLD Best Practices

Explore WIPO