• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.105-124
• /
• 2014

There is a growing interest in resolving intellectual property rights disputes through arbitration rather than in state courts. The internationalization of commercial relations, one of the most significant drivers of the growth of international arbitration in general, encompasses intellectual property relationships as well. In 2014, the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center revised its arbitration rules. The revision is part of a wave of recent updates of institutional arbitral rules. After briefly introducing the WIPO Center as an arbitral institution, this article assesses the features of the WIPO Rules that make them suitable for the particular challenges of IP-related disputes. A second part reviews the salient new aspects of the WIPO Rules from a comparative perspective.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.77-98
• /
• 2021

International commercial mediation of intellectual property rights fully meets the interests of the parties in such disputes in terms of their needs for neutral forum of dispute resolution, cost-effective settlement, objective opinion of relevant experts, internationally enforceable solution. In addition, as a procedural flexibility, respected self-determination of the parties, exploration of possible creative business solutions, maintenance of business relationship and confidentiality of mediation are major characteristics which can be competitively differentiated from the lawsuit or arbitration. The settlement agreement as a result of the WIPO mediation has an effect of contract while the settlement agreement as a result of most domestic ones has an effect of judicial reconciliation which can be domestically enforced. The latter is not subject to the application of the Singapore Convention on Mediation which establishes a harmonized legal framework for the right to invoke settlement agreements as well as for their enforcement. The WIPO international mediation system and its experience may be a good reference for Korea to take an initiative to establish a globally competitive international mediation system in the area of intellectual property rights.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.3
• /
• pp.75-97
• /
• 2019

The growing importance of biological resources as sovereign rights to healthcare, energy, and food has sparked international discussions on Genetic Resources (GRs) and Traditional Knowledge (TK). As the bio-industry continues to grow, research and development utilizing patented biological resources are advocated. Currently, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is actively discussing GRs and TK, and an effective response to national interest has been sought. Of late, there have been growing disputes over issues like ownership, control, and access and benefit-sharing between indigenous peoples and users of GRs and TK resources. Resolution of disputes concerning GRs and TK are thus becoming critical not only to stakeholders such as the indigenous peoples and corporations, but also to third-party users. Due to the weakness of the current IP and court system however, such disputes are not addressed adequately. This paper will address the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), which is an out-of-court dispute resolution system, on conflicting issues regarding GRs and TK. It will consider the WIPO as a forum for ADR and ADR for GRs and TK disputes and it will seek both parties in the dispute to benefit from the use of the ADR process.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.55
• /
• pp.63-93
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this paper is to examine the consideration factors, from both parties' perspective, to select the most appropriate arbitral institution when they inset an arbitration clause in their contract. Accordingly, the author analyzed the advantages of institutional arbitration compared to non-institutional arbitration. The typical advantages of institutional arbitration would include: $\bullet$ Benefits of using an established set of rules $\bullet$ Services provided by the institution $\bullet$ Low risks of obstruction $\bullet$ Enhancement of the possibilities of enforcement $\bullet$ Forecast of the estimated cost $\bullet$ Specially useful for existing disputes Next, this author examined the consideration factors when selecting the institution in respect of the following factors: $\bullet$ Institution's arbitration rules $\bullet$ Institution's rule regarding the appointment of arbitrators $\bullet$ Ability of administrators of each institution $\bullet$ Reputation of the arbitral institution and the likability of enforceability of its award $\bullet$ Cost $\bullet$ Choice of the arbitral institution in relation to the choice of place of arbitration Finally, this author reviewed Model Arbitration Clause of major international or local Institutions, including ICC, AAA, LCIA, KCAB, CIETAC, ICSID and WIPO. Further examination was given to the selection of the numbers of the arbitral tribunal, the seat of arbitration and the language of arbitration, according to the designated articles in each institution's arbitration rules.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.33 no.3
• /
• pp.147-175
• /
• 2023

The emergence of the metaverse, a complex three-dimensional virtual environment, has led to significant changes in the intellectual property (IP) landscape. This paper examines the challenges and legal intricacies of IP within the virtual realm, focusing on the unprecedented nature of these disputes and on the inadequacies of traditional jurisdiction methods. Drawing from international frameworks, including the International Law Association's Guidelines and WIPO's guides, the study critically explores arbitration as an alternate approach to metaverse IP disputes, analyzing its complexities and applicability. The paper further delves into challenges arising from diverse protection laws that pertain to the global nature of the metaverse, including the nuances of various digital assets like NFTs. By assessing jurisdictional difficulties, the paper addresses the adoption of decentralized justice platforms, and examines the role of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods, this paper presents a comprehensive view of the evolving virtual legal field. It suggests that while innovative methods are emerging, traditional arbitration will likely remain the preferred choice for complex disputes, offering a balance of speed, cost-effectiveness, and legal robustness within the virtual world.

• 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 Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.27-44
• /
• 2016

The use of program formats has slowly but surely developed into an important component of the television industry. This article examines the surprising gap between the constantly growing, multi-billion-dollar trade of program formats and their unclear and contradictory legal treatment. From both the social and commercial standpoints, television formats are valuable creations. Understanding the two products, the paper and program stages, of a television format and their respective markets, is fundamental to discussions of its legal protection. Interestingly, under current law, the less-developed stages of the process (program ideas and paper formats) are awarded more protection than the aired program format, which accumulates higher levels of investment, creativity, and expression. Internal industry mechanisms, such as vertical integration, damage to reputation, and industry institutions, exist in both markets and are still able to control and influence members' behavior to some extent. However, while the influence of internal industry mechanisms is still strong in the paper format market, in the program format market, which continues to grow, such mechanisms have weakened, amplifying the importance of a clear legal system. The absence of protection will certainly not completely eliminate the production of new program formats. However, these factors do not add up to a case against protection. The changes in the program format market in the last two decades support the theory that the overall effect of providing legal protection for TV formats would promote beneficial competition and encourage more original creations. The underlying question for television formats should not be whether to protect but rather how.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.343-373
• /
• 2006

지적재산권의 속지주의 원칙에 따라 전통적으로 지적재산권의 침해에 있어서 결과의 발생이 없는 행위지를 침해지로 인정하지 않았다. 어문과 예술작품을 보호하기 위해 1886년 체결된 베른협약(Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works) 제5조 제1항은 저작자가 베른협약에 따라 보호되는 저작물에 관하여 본국 이외의 동맹국에서 각 법률이 현재 또는 장래에 자국민에게 부여하는 권리 및 이 협약이 특별히 부여하는 권리를 향유한다고 규정하여 내국민대우원칙을 천명하고 있다. 또한 베른협약 제5조 제2항은 저작권의 보호와 향유는 저작물의 본국에서 보호가 존재하는 여부와 관계가 없이, 보호의 범위와 저작자의 권리를 보호하기 위하여 주어지는 구제의 방법은 오로지 보호가 주장되는 국가의 법률의 지배를 받는다라고 규정하여 저작권 침해가 발행한 국가의 법률의 적용을 명시하고 있다. 인터넷과 무선통신 기술의 발달은 저작물을 디지탈 형식으로 실시간에 전세계에 배포하는 것을 가능하게 하였다. 특히 저작물의 인터넷상에서의 배포는 다국적 저작권 침해행위를 야기하여, 저작권자가 다수의 국가에서 저작권 침해소송을 제기하여 판결을 집행하는 것이 필요하게 되었다. 헤이그국제사법회의(Hague Conference on Private International Law)에서 1992년부터 논의되어 온 민사 및 상사사건의 국제재판관할과 외국판결에 관한 협약(Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgment in Civil and Commercial Matters)에서 채택된1999년의 예비초안(preliminary draft) 및 2001년 외교회의에서 수정된 잠정초안(Interim text) (이하 헤이그 협약 )은 저작권자가 저작권침해행위가 발생한 각 국가에서 저작권 침해행위를 금지하는 소송을 제기할 필요없이, 동 협약의 한 가맹국가의 법원의 저작권침해금지판결을 다른 가맹국가에서도 집행할 수 있는 가능성을 제시해 주는데 의미가 있다. 헤이그 협약 제10조는 불법행위(torts)에 관한 일반적인 재판관할에 관한 규정을 두고 있으며, 저작권침해에 관한 분쟁은 동 조항의 적용을 받는다. 제10조에 의해 당사자는 가해행위지 국가의 법원 또는 결과발생지 국가의 법원에서 소송을 제기할 수 있다. 결과발생지의 경우 제10조 1항 (b)는 피고가 자신의 행위가 본국의 법규에 비추어 동일한 성격의 손해를 초래할 수 있다라고 합리적으로 예견할 수 없었던 경우에 본 조항의 적용을 배제하고 있다. 인터넷을 통한 저작권침해의 경우, 피고가 자신의 국가의 법규하에서 합법적으로 저작물을 웹사이트에 게시하였으나, 그 행위가 다운로딩이 행해진 국가에서 불법인 경우, 피고는 저작권침해를 예견할 수 없었으므로 이에 문제가 제기된다. iCrave TV사건에서, 피고인 캐나다회사가 미국 및 캐나다에서 방송되는 텔레비젼 방송 프로그램을 자신의 웹사이트에 게시하여 이용자들로 하여금 컴퓨터를 통하여 방송을 재시청 할 수 있도록 하였는데 이는 캐나다에서 합법인 반면에 미국에서는 저작권 침해에 해당한다. 피고는 방송 프로그램을 인터넷상에서 재방송하는 것은 캐나다법상 합법이므로 저작권침해를 예견할 수 없었다고 주장하면서, 해당 사이트에 오직 캐나다 거주자만의 접속을 허용하고 미국 거주자의 접속을 제한하는 일련의 Click-Wrap 계약과 스크린 장치를 제공하였다고 주장하였다. 본 사건 피고의 주장을 받아들인다고 가정할 때, 제10조 1항(b)에 의해 원고는 결과발생지인 미국법원의 재판관할을 강제할 수 없을 것이다. 지적재산권을 둘러싼 분쟁에 관한 재판관할과 국제법상의 판결의 승인 및 집행의 통일성을 기하기 위하여 2001년 1월 세계지적재산권기구(World Intellectual Property Organization)가 제안한 WIPO 협약초안(Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Recognition of Judgments in Intellectual Property Matters)은 헤이그 협약이 재판관할과 판결의 승인 및 집행에 대한 일반적인 접근을 하고 있는 점에 반하여 지적재산권자의 보호라는 측면을 고려하여 지적재산권침해소송에 국제재판관할권을 규정하고 있다. WIPO 협약초안 제6조는 저작권자가 저작권 침해를 막기 위한 합리적인 조치를 취한 국가에서 저작권 침해소송을 피할 수 있다고 규정하고 있다. 따라서 본 조항에 의할 경우, iCrave TV사건의 피고는 미국에서의 저작권 침해소송을 회피할 수 있을 것이다. 이상과 같이 헤이그 협약이 외국판결의 승인 및 집행을 가능하게 하고 있음에도 불구하고, 외국법원의 판결이 다수의 가맹국가에서 집행되지 못하는 가장 큰 장애는 대다수의 국가들이 외국법원의 판결이 공서양속(Public Policy)에 반하는 경우 판결을 승인하지 않는 예외규정을 두고 있기 때문이다. 미국의 경우, Uniform Recognition Act와 Restatement(Third) of Foreign Relations에 따른 공서양속의 예외규정(Public Policy exception)은 외국법원의 판결의 승인을 부인하는 근거가 된다. Yahoo! 사건에서 Yahoo! Inc.의 옥션 사이트를 통해 독일 나치 소장물의 판매가 이루어졌는데, 프랑스 형법상 이는 범죄행위에 해당하므로, 프랑스 법원은Yahoo! Inc.에게 프랑스 이용자가 당해 옥션 사이트에 접속할 수 없도록 모든 가능한 조치를 취할 것을 명하였다. 이에 미국 법원은 프랑스 법원의 판결은 Yahoo! Inc.의 미국헌법 제1 수정(First Amendment)의 언론의 자유(freedom of speech)에 반하므로 판결의 집행을 거부하였는데 이는 공서양속의 예외규정을 보여주는 예이다. 헤이그 협약 제28조와 WIPO 협약초안 제25조 또한 공서양속의 예외규정을 두고 있다. 본 논문은 인터넷과 통신기술의 발달로 야기되는 다국적 저작권 침해사건에서 한 국가의 법원의 저작권 침해금지판결이 다수의 국가에서 승인 및 집행될 수 있는 능성을 헤이그 협약과 WIPO 협약초안 및 미국판결을 중심으로 살펴보았다. 국제적으로 통일된 저작권법이 존재하지 않고 외국 판결의 승인을 부인하는 예외조항과 외국판결의 집행에 관한 각국의 이해관계와 준거법의 해석이 다른 현시점에서 지적재산권의 속지주의를 뛰어넘어 외국법원의 판결을 국제적으로 집행하는 것은 다소 어려움이 있어 보이나 국제적인 집행가능성의 열쇠를 제시하는 헤이그 협약과 장래의 국제조약에 그 기대를 걸어볼 수 있겠다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.71-89
• /
• 2008

International technology transfer(ITT) or technology trade is a very comprehensive term covering various mechanisms and channels for shifting technologies across borders. Thus, it refers to numerous complex processes, ranging from innovation and international marketing of technology to its absorption and imitation. It includes technology, trade, and investment. Markets for exchanging technologies are inherently subject to failure due to appropriability problems, spillovers, asymmetric information, and market power. Thus, there is strong justification for public intervention. Technology developers are interested in reducing the costs and uncertainty of making transfers, along with protecting their rights to profit from such transfers. On the other hand, technology importers are interested in acquiring knowledge at minimal costs, asking for restricting sharply the exclusive rights of foreign firms to exploit technology. The purpose of this paper is to review the characteristics, risks, legal issues and contractual check points of ITT, focusing on the avoidance of commercial disputes during the very complex processes of ITT.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.291-322
• /
• 1999

The world of today faces a radical change, a new revolution, by the spread of the Internet. It is used not only for advertising but also for the exclusive rights in the field of information and communication, in add to the way of developing everyday our lives with world news, home-shopping, on-line education and so on. Actually, since the Internet Domain's Name(IDN) is unique over the world, the individual and the companies which provide information through the Internet have a keen competition to make a good IDN to memorize and organize all available information provided them. As a result, there are an increasing number of the cases where one company files suit against another for the validity of it's IDN so the policy to arbitrate and solute the cases is required. This paper is going to introduce the structure and the system of management for IDN. It will also discuss the efficient management of IDN, various case analysis of the dispute restraint and solutions, and the movement of improving the management procedure of IDN in WIPO. So we suggest to examine common disputes among IDN uses and solution methods for future problem at EC times. Therefore we have to establish the dispute solution system. Here are the two methods : one is that to establish a dispute solution organization. This organization which can conduct the new dispute solution procedure differs from the existing legislation system. The other is that to establish a dispute solution procedure i.e. the various dispute solution procedure for efficient dispute solution : council, inspection, mediation and arbitration. This procedure is conducted on-line due to features of the IDN disputes, also along with the current legislation system and the International dispute solution procedure. Because there is possibility the IDN disputes usually are connected with other countries. As there is no specific disputes solution procedure so far, we have to wait while development occurs that also striving to be coherent with and between the domestic and International solution procedure by helping to establish the International dispute solution procedure.