• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.167-187
• /
• 2007

As Korea has reached a free trade agreement with the United States of America, it is required to provide an appropriate procedure to ".kr" domain name disputes based on the principles established in the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy(UDRP). Currently, Internet address Dispute Resolution Committee(IDRC) established under Article 16 of the Act on Internet Address Resources provides the dispute resolution proceedings to resolve ".kr" domain name disputes. While the IDRC's proceeding is similar to the UDRP administrative proceeding in procedural aspects, the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy that is established by the IDRC and that applies to disputes involving ".kr" domain names is very different from the UDRP for generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) in substantial aspects. Under the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement(KORUS FTA), it is expected that either the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy to be amended to adopt the UDRP or the IDRC to examine the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy in order to harmonize it with the principles established in the UDRP. It is a common practice of cybersquatters to warehouse a number of domain names without any active use of these domain names after their registration. The Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy provides that the complainant may request to transfer or delete the registration of the disputed domain name if the registrant registered, holds or uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. This provision lifts the complainant's burden of proof to show the respondent's bad faith because the complainant is only required to prove one of the three bad faiths which are registration in bad faith, holding in bad faith, or use in bad faith. The aforementioned resolution procedure is different from the UDRP regime which requires the complainant, in compliance with paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP, to prove that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the complainant carries heavy burden of proof under the UDRP. The IDRC should deny the complaint if the respondent has legitimate rights or interests in the domain names. Under the UDRP, the complainant must show that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The UDRP sets out three illustrative circumstances, any one of which if proved by the respondent, shall be evidence of the respondent's rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name. As the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy provides only a general provision regarding the respondent's legitimate rights or interests, the respondent can be placed in a very week foundation to be protected under the Policy. It is therefore recommended for the IDRC to adopt the three UDRP circumstances to guide how the respondent can demonstrate his/her legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name. In accordance with the KORUS FTA, the Korean Government is required to provide online publication to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain name registrants. Cybersquatters often provide inaccurate contact information or willfully conceal their identity to avoid objection by trademark owners. It may cause unnecessary and unwarranted delay of the administrative proceedings. The respondent may loss the opportunity to assert his/her rights or legitimate interests in the domain name due to inability to submit the response effectively and timely. The respondent could breach a registration agreement with a registrar which requires the registrant to submit and update accurate contact information. The respondent who is reluctant to disclose his/her contact information on the Internet citing for privacy rights and protection. This is however debatable as the respondent may use the proxy registration service provided by the registrar to protect the respondent's privacy.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.49-66
• /
• 2000

전자상거래의 활성화에 더불어 도메인 네임의 중요성이 증대되어감에 따라 도메인 네임을 둘러싼 분쟁이 증가하고 있다. 본 연구에서는 기존의 법원을 통한 도메인 네임 분쟁사례와 최근 들어 또 다른 대안으로 등장한 ICANN의 UDRP와 그 규칙을 살펴보고 관련 분쟁해결기구들(Providers)을 통한 분쟁사례를 고찰하여 국제적인 도메인 네임 분쟁에 있어 시사점올 제시하고자 한다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.113-131
• /
• 2011

Recently, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) announced the expansion of the number of generic top-level domains (gTLDs) beyond the current 22 gTLDs, and the gTLD Applicant Guidebook for ICANN's new gTLD program is now under consideration for approval. ICANN also introduces a "Trademark Clearinghouse" and the "Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS)" procedure to protect trademarks and expedite dispute resolution and save costs. The Trademark Clearinghouse is a central repository for information to be authenticated, stored and disseminated, pertaining to the rights of the trademark holders. Trademark holders would voluntarily provide data of their trademarks from all over the world, and it would assist a trademark watch service provided by the new gTLD registry for trademark holders and potential domain name registrants. The URS is a part of the new gTLD dispute resolution mechanisms created by ICANN to resolve cybersquatting disputes. A complainant in a URS proceeding must establish three elements that are very similar to the existing UDRP to succeed, but supposedly more expedited and cost efficient. Since the URS provides that it only protects court validated and registered trademarks, it is not clear whether unregistered marks used in commerce are protected under the URS. The URS escalates the complainant's burden of proof from a preponderance of evidence standard under the UDRP to a clear and convincing evidence standard. The notices to a respondent shall be sufficient if the URS Provider sends the notice of Complaint to the addresses listed in the Whois contact information. As registrants who wish to conceal their true identity often subscribe to the privacy/proxy service and the complainant's high rate of success in the UDRP proceeding is relevant to the respondents' default rate, the URS's simple notice requirement would deprive respondents of a fair opportunity to assert their rights over the disputed domain names.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.519-546
• /
• 2004

On June 27, 2002 Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) launched dot-ca domain name dispute resolution service through BCICAC and Resolution Canada, Inc. The Domain name Dispute Resolution Policy (CDRP) of CIRA is basically modelled after Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy(UDRP), while the substance of CDRP is slightly modified to meet the need of Canadian domain name regime and its legal system. Firstly, this article examined CIRA's domain name dispute resolution policy in general. It is obvious that the domain name dispute resolution proceeding is non-binding arbitration to which arbitration law does not apply. However it still belongs to the arbitration and far from the usual mediation process. Domain name arbitrators render decision rather than assist disputing parties themselves reach to agreement. In this respect the domain name arbitration is similar to arbitration or litigation rather than mediation. Secondly it explored how the panels applied the substantive standards in domain name arbitration. There is some criticism that panelists interprets the test of "confusingly similar" in conflicting manner. As a result critics assert that courts' judicial review is necessary to reduce the conflicting interpretation on the test of substantive standards stipulated in paragraph 3 of CDRP. Finally, it analysed the court's position on domain name arbitral award. Canadian courts do not seem to establish a explicit standard for judicial review over it yet. However, in Black v. Molson case Ontario Superior Court applied the UDRP rules in examining the WIPO panel's decision, while US courts often apply domestic patent law and ACPA(Anticyber -squatting Consumer's Protection Act) to review domain name arbitration decision rather than UDRP rules. In conclusion this article suggests that courts should restrict their judicial review on domain name administrative panel's decision at best. This will lead to facilitating the use of ADR in domain name dispute resolution and reducing the burden of courts' dockets.

• Journal of the Korea Society of Computer and Information
• /
• v.18 no.11
• /
• pp.221-227
• /
• 2013

Cybersquatting is a type of conflicts between a trademark and a domain, and refers to "behaviors of registering, retaining, transferring, and using the identical or similar domain name in bad faith for the profit from the mark such as trademark". That is, it is preoccupying behavior to abuse the fact that the domain name in the Internet can be freely registered on a first come, first served basis and can't duplicate. Though this should be prohibited, given the reality that most of our daily lives are based in the Internet, this is creating many problems in IT environment beyond social structure in rule of law. Therefore, this study has the purpose that it provides cybersquatting-related information and suggests legislative implications hereafter through the analysis of cybersquatting-related precedent from the Supreme Court.