• 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.

• 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.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.19 no.2
• /
• pp.27-47
• /
• 2009

Concepts of mediation and conciliation as alternative dispute resolutions are often confusingly used. As to what is meant by mediation and conciliation, there is no uniform legal definition. However, there has been a distinction between two methods of dispute settlement under the international law (UN Charter, WTO DSU, NAFTA, EU mediation directive, WIPO Mediation Rules) although there is no clear definition on the terms of mediation and conciliation. And also under the domestic law such as U.K, France, Germany, a clear distinction has been made between two terms. Mediation means a facilitated negotiation between two parties through the intervention of a third party. A third and neutral party (mediator) help the parties in dispute to find their solution by managing a certain mediation protocol and facilitating communication between the parties while in conciliation, a third party evaluative the case and can suggest the parties a legally non-binding solution. Once the parties accept it, it becomes binding between them. However, in the U.S,, it seems that there is no practical use of distinguishing mediation and conciliation. The term of mediation is more commonly used than the term of conciliation and it has two kinds of mediation such as facilitative and evaluative mediation. Korea's conciliation system is close to conciliation or evaluative mediation. In conclusion, what is distinct between mediation and conciliation is the role of third party. If a neutral third party takes a role of advisor or facilitator, then he or she may employ a proper protocol to help the parties to find themselves their solution (mediation) while if a neutral person plays a role of evaluator, then he or she listens to the parties and suggest a solution to them (conciliation).