What can a foreign party expect in relation to dispute resolution when doing business in China? If a dispute arises, negotiation is the best initial method of resolution. Most business contracts in China will include a clause requiring negotiation before other dispute settlement mechanisms are pursued. Negotiation might require attempts to enlist the help of local government officials by emphasising the importance of the foreign company’s investment.

If negotiation fails, it is arbitration that has for many years been the preferred method of resolution for foreign-related commercial disputes in China. Arbitrators have, at least until recently, been more experienced and better qualified in the subject matter than judges, and procedures have been more flexible and predictable. Arbitration also has the advantage of finality, in that awards are not subject to appeal whereas court rulings may result in a lengthy appeal process.

Arbitration in China is governed principally by the Arbitration Law 1995 and the Civil Procedure Law 1991. The most striking characteristic is that only institutional arbitration is recognised in China and it is unlikely that there will be any change in the near future to allow ad hoc arbitration. Parties are therefore bound to choose an institution and are restricted by some aspects of Chinese institutional practice. There is still considerable reluctance to allow foreign arbitral institutions to set up within China.

The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) is the best known institution for foreign-related disputes, but there are over 170 other arbitration commissions. CIETAC re-issued its panel of arbitrators in May this year and this included over 200 foreign arbitrators.

The procedure is normally inquisitorial although CIETAC now authorises adversarial procedures such as cross-examination. Documentary disclosure orders are rare. Hearings tend to be short, often only a day.

“The scale of the court system is staggering: 8.1 million cases were decided by China’s 220,000 judges in 2006”

One of the most frequently cited difficulties is enforcement of foreign-related awards made in China and international arbitration awards sought to be enforced in China under the New York Convention – to which China acceded in 1987. In response to international concern, the Supreme Court introduced a reporting procedure for courts intending to refuse enforcement. This and other measures have greatly improved matters although there are still residual difficulties in transparency and delay in the enforcement process.

How do foreign parties fare in court proceedings? The scale of the court system is staggering: 8.1 million cases were decided by China’s 220,000 judges in 2006 in the 3,234 courts. The four levels of courts comprise in ascending order: basic courts, intermediate courts, provincial high courts and the Supreme People’s Court in Beijing. Cases involving foreign interests will be heard by either a basic court or an intermediate court depending on subject matter and size.

The procedure involves a first instance trial and the possibility of one level of appeal. The process is subject to review by higher courts, with widened criteria introduced by a new Civil Procedure Law. This may increase safeguards in the process but at the expense of delay in achieving finality.

Part of the article writted by Adrian Hughes is a foreign panel member of China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) in Building.

A Directive on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters was adopted today 23 April 2008. The purpose of the Directive is to facilitate access to cross-border dispute resolution and to promote the amicable settlement of disputes by encouraging the use of mediation and by ensuring a sound relationship between mediation and judicial proceedings. The Directive is one of the follow-up actions to the Green Paper on alternative dispute resolution presented by the Commission in 2002, the other being the European Code of Conduct for Mediators established by a group of stakeholders with the assistance of the Commission and launched in July 2004.

Welcoming the adoption of this Directive, Vice-President Jacques Barrot said: “This Directive fulfils the political objective established in October 1999 by the European Council of Tampere, which – in the context of encouraging better access to justice in Europe – called for the creation of alternative, extrajudicial procedures for dispute resolution in the Member States. Mediation can provide cost-effective and quick extrajudicial resolution of disputes in civil and commercial matters through processes tailored to the needs of the parties. Agreements resulting from mediation are more likely to be complied with voluntarily and help preserve an amicable and sustainable relationship between the parties.

The Commission proposed the Directive in October 2004 (IP/04/1288). The Directive facilitates recourse to mediation by strengthening the legal guarantees accompanying it, thus giving real added value to citizens and businesses in the European Union. The key components of the Directive are as follows:

The Directive obliges Member States to encourage the training of mediators and the development of, and adherence to, voluntary codes of conduct and other effective quality control mechanisms concerning the provision of mediation services.

The Directive gives every Judge in the Community, at any stage of the proceedings, the right to suggest that the parties attend an information meeting on mediation and, if the Judge deems it appropriate, to invite the parties to have recourse to mediation.

The Directive enables parties to give an agreement concluded following mediation a status similar to that of a Court judgment by rendering it enforceable. This can be achieved, for example, by way of judicial approval or notarial certification, thereby allowing such agreements to be enforceable in the Member States under existing Community rules.

The Directive ensures that mediation takes place in an atmosphere of confidentiality and that information given or submissions made by any party during mediation cannot be used against that party in subsequent judicial proceedings if the mediation fails. This provision is essential to give parties confidence in, and to encourage them to make use of, mediation.

To this end, the Directive provides that the mediator cannot be compelled to give evidence about what took place during mediation in subsequent judicial proceedings between the parties.

The provision of the Directive on periods of limitation and prescription will ensure that parties that have recourse to mediation will not be prevented from going to court as a result of the time spent on mediation. The Directive thus preserves the parties’ access to justice should mediation not succeed.

Source: A boost for mediation in civil and commercial matters: European Parliament endorses new rules

The award followed four days of intense competition , as the team from Sao Paolo and the University of California Hastings College of Law were pitted against each other to mediate a complex business deal. The Brazilian team, made up of Gisela Ferreira Mation, Pedro Fida Fenelon Tibucheski, and Daniel Tabel Luis received a trophy, EUR 2 000 in prize money, an internship at ICC’s ADR Secretariat, and a set of legal reference books.

Every participant in this year’s competition received a year’s subscription to the ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin. The awards ceremony was officiated by Guy Sebban, ICC Secretary General, Jason Fry, Secretary General of the ICC International Court of Arbitration and ICC Dispute Resolution Services Director and Pierre Tercier, Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration.

This year’s competition involved an even bigger roster of contenders from 30 universities in Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Morocco, Singapore, Switzerland, Ukraine, the UK and the US.

Competitors acted as counsel and parties before professional mediators and used ICC’s ADR rules to solve business problems.

“What better way to educate tomorrow’s lawyers on the range mechanisms available for resolving international business disputes than through an international competition?” said Pierre Tercier.

The competition is part of ICC’s Dispute Resolution Services core mission: to educate the next generation of law professionals. Inaugurated in 2006, the annual ICC International Mediation Competition is organized by the Amicable Dispute Resolution (ADR) division. The competition brings together law schools from all over the world, giving students an opportunity to test their problem-solving skills in a mock international mediation, and to meet experts from diverse legal and professional backgrounds.

Next year, the 4th ICC International Mediation Competition takes place 12 to 16 February.

For more information contact:

Ms Emilie ROMEO
Project Coordinator
Email: iccmediationcompetition(AT)iccwbo.org

Negotiation: The most common form of dispute resolution is negotiation. By this means alone nearly all disputes are solved. If negotiations fail, it is necessary to seek the assistance of a neutral third party or several neutral third parties to facilitate a solution.

Mr. Christopher To, Secretary General of Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre HKIAC, video:

Arbitration: For an arbitration to take place, the disputing parties must agree to take their dispute to arbitration. In practice, this agreement is often made before the dispute arises and is included as a clause in their commercial contract. In signing a contract with an arbitration clause, the parties are agreeing that their dispute will not be heard by a court but by a private individual or a panel of several private individuals. If parties have agreed to arbitration, they will generally have to go to arbitration rather than court as the courts will normally refuse to hear their case by staying it to force the reluctant party to honour their agreement to arbitrate.

Arbitration is a legal process which results in an award being issued by the arbitrator or arbitrators. Arbitration awards are final and binding on the parties and can only be challenged in very exceptional circumstances. An award has a status very like a court judgment and is enforceable in a very similar manner. Arbitration awards made in Hong Kong are enforceable through the courts of most of the world’s trading nations.

Litigation: In the absence of an arbitration agreement or other consensual means of dispute resolution, the parties may commence proceedings in the courts. Litigation in Hong Kong courts is handled very competently. The decision of the Court of First Instance is not, however, final as an aggrieved party has an automatic right of appeal to the Court of Appeal and if the amount in dispute exceeds HK$1,000,000, they have an automatic right of appeal from the Court of Appeal to the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal.

Online Arbitration in Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre HKIAC

The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre HKIAC places great emphasis to providing online dispute resolution services in a wide variety of areas including the areas of intellectual property and information technology. Thus it is fitting that the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre HKIAC has set as one of its goals to be one of the leaders among online dispute resolution providers in regard to domain names and E-Commerce.

The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre HKIAC provides online dispute resolution services in the following ways:-

Dispute Resolution Service for Domain Names:

1. Dispute Resolution for gTLDs (for example: .com, .net and .org etc) – (UDRP)
As a partner in and manager of the Hong Kong Office of in the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre which is one of the four domain name dispute resolution providers approved by the Internet Corporation for the Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to provide domain name dispute resolution services in regard to generic top level domain names (gTLDs) such as .com, .net and .org. Disputes in regard to gTLDs are carried out under the Uniform Domain Name Policy (UDRP) issued by ICANN. Dispute Resolution for gTLDs

2. Dispute Resolution for ccTLDs (for example: .hk, .cn , .pw and .ph etc)
a. The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre HKIAC is the sole provider of dispute resolution services in regards to .hk domain names, having been appointed for such purpose by the Hong Kong Domain Name Registration Company Limited (HKDNR). Mandatory final and binding arbitration is the method chosen by HKDNR for the purpose of resolving disputes in regards to .hk domain names. Dispute Resolution for .hk
b. The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre HKIAC has been appointed by the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) to resolve .cn domain name disputes. Dispute Resolution for .cn
c.The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre HKIAC was appointed by the .pw Registry Corporation as the sole .pw Domain Name Dispute Resolution Service Provider. Dispute Resolution for .pw
d.The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre HKIAC was recently appointed by the .dotPH – the Official Domain Name Registry for Philippines to resolve .ph domain name disputes. Dispute Resolution for .ph

3. DotAsia Sunrise Challenge Policy.

The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) is the global official dispute resolution provider to handle disputes and challenges arising out of the launch of the .Asia domain.

Dispute Resolution for Registrar Transfer (TDRP)

The ADNDRC has started to handle Registrar Transfer Disputes under the ICANN Registrar Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy since 11 December 2004. Dispute Resolution for Registrar Transfer Disputes.

Dispute Resolution for Internet Keyword

The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre HKIAC has been appointed by the CNNIC as a provider to handle Internet Keyword Dispute under CNNIC’s Internet Keyword Dispute Resolution Policy. Dispute Resolution for Internet Keyword Dispute.

Dispute Resolution for E-Commerce – HKIAC Webtrust Programme

Webtrust Programme is a third party arbitration framework for the use and adoption by on-line merchants to handle consumer disputes on-line. It is jointly promulgated by the HKIAC and the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accounts in January 2002. The HKIAC is the administrative organisation of that programme, responsible for administering the Programme and appointing of arbitrator. The HKIAC Electronic Transaction Arbitration Rules was adopted as the rules for the arbitration process of that programme.

In order to facilitate the efficient and speedy disposition of domain name disputes, the HKIAC, with technology powered and supported by the Tradelink Electronic Commerce Ltd., has developed a proprietary on-line dispute resolution system for gTLD and hkTLD, which permits parties to conduct their domain name dispute cases by means of a sophisticated fully on-line web-based system.

More information: Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre HKIAC.

- The American Arbitration Association – AAA – says ODR is used in only a small percentage of all cases settled, but it has seen recent growth. In 2006, 3,000 of the 160,000 cases the AAA handled were done digitally.

- ODR, Online dispute resolution is a broad category: Any mediation, ar­bitration or dispute resolution that takes place outside of court and at least partially online qualifies. It differs from alternative dispute res­olution, which refers to processes outside governmental jurisdiction. ODR can mean anything from e-mailing documents and evidence to using videoconferencing to bring the sides together. And it has been most effective in international or long-distance disputes involving technology issues.

- ODR will always be most important for online businesses since it’s clear the Internet is not always a harmonious place, giving rise to many disputes. Often those disputes involve small dollar amounts, far-flung ad­versarial parties and seemingly petty issues. In the wildly popular online game Second Life, a dispute arose because one player put a nude image where another player would be forced to look at it. It’s the kind of thing that’s too small to litigate in the real world—but using Web mediation, it got resolved.

- ODR makes most sense in cases in which attorneys’ fees would exceed what could be recouped. But many large organizations, particularly insurance companies and municipalities, are finding ODR saves them money even in big-money cases because a matter can be handled much faster.

- ODR is faster because it is not dependent on getting on a mediator’s or judge’s calendar. Using e-mail, discussion groups and Web sites, agreements can be written, posted and responded to when convenient. And when something needs to get done fast, participants can log on to a chat or a secure online session and hash out a dispute no matter where in the world participants may be.

- ODR has the added benefit of simplifying jurisdictional issues. Such matters can be resolved at the outset once all parties agree. And there is greater flexibility for the adversarial parties, with each dispute process tailored to each dispute’s needs. As long as someone can get online, he or she can participate in the process.

ODR Aplications:

Online dispute resolution may not have taken over the process of solving conflict, but it has provided new, efficient and low-cost ways to reach the goal. The following are a few examples of ODR applications:

1. FILING A CLAIM ONLINE

SquareTrade uses a tool called Direct Negotiation, which handles all the communications through e-mail, including an online form to explain the complaint and possible resolutions, and contact with the defending party to see if it will counter. If Direct Negotiation doesn’t bring a settlement, a mediator can join in.

2. TRADING SETTLEMENT OFFERS

In Cybersettle’s system, a claims professional initiates the process with confidential offers. The opposition is notified by fax, e-mail or mail, and the respondent has three tries to settle the claim. If the complainant’s offer is less than or equal to the opposition’s, the claim settles.

3. DISCUSSING THE ISSUES

The E-Arbitration-T Open Source Groupware and Customer Relationship Management Suite allows parties to create an entire ODR system, handling online case document sharing between all parties and offering full security. Off-the-shelf solutions like wikis and whiteboards also allow parties to share information, discuss and collaborate on documents, and even reach agreements online.

4. SIGNING AN AGREEMENT

The federal E-Sign Act has validated the use of electronic documents and electronic signatures since 2000. Digital signatures can now be added to many commonly used documents, including those created with Adobe Acrobat 8.

More information in: Settling It On the Web.

Qualifications

Advanced university degree in law, with admission to practice in at least one jurisdiction of a Member State. A minimum of 9 years of progressively responsible professional legal experience in the practice of law either in the legal office of an international organization, or in a law firm, or the legal office of a Government is required. Knowledge of public international law, the law of international organizations, and/or arbitration is desirable. Excellence in drafting and negotiating legal texts, as well as superior analytical, verbal communication, and inter-personal skills are required. Fluency in written and spoken English is essential. Good working knowledge of French is desirable. Good working knowledge of Spanish and/or any other major language is a plus.

Duties and Responsibilities

As a senior member of the International Bureau of thePermanent Court of Arbitration, located at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the duties of this post include the following:

Management and Supervision: (1) Manage arbitral and other proceedings conducted under the auspices of the PCA, including by acting as Registrar or Secretary to arbitral tribunals. As Registrar or Secretary, members of the International Bureau perform or oversee administrative and research tasks on behalf of tribunals, organize and attend hearings, edit arbitral awards and procedural orders, and manage tribunal accounts. (2) Supervise junior lawyers, legal interns, and staff and provide guidance in their work, either in connection with legal proceedings administered by the PCA, or in connection with other projects undertaken by the PCA in accordance with its mandate as an institution devoted to the peaceful resolution of international disputes, such as drafting new procedural rules. (3) Assist and advise the Secretary-General on recruiting, personnel, and administrative matters, and in the overall management of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

Administration: (1) Provide legal advice and drafting work with respect to internal rules and regulations of the PCA. (2) Draft and negotiate international agreements and other arrangements entered into by the PCA with States and other bodies or organizations. (3) Assist and advise the Secretary-General in preparation of the PCA budget. (4) Draft PCA Administrative Council and Budget Committee documents, and attend and advise concerning meetings of the Administrative Council and the Budget Committee.

Outreach and representational duties: (1) Present papers and participate in conferences on issues related to arbitration, public international law, and other matters within the mandate of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. (2) Engage in outreach with practitioners, governments, NGOs, other international organizations, student groups, and the general public about arbitration and the history, role, and activities of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. (3) Represent the PCA at diplomatic meetings and other functions.

Remuneration

Depending on professional background and experience a competitive compensation is offered for this senior post. Permanent Court of Arbitration salary levels are derived from the “Basic salary scales for OECD staff”, with an adjustment for the cost of living for The Netherlands.

Interested individuals are invited to submit a curriculum vitae with covering letter (preferably by e-mail) by March 17, 2006 to:

Mr. R. van Eekelen
Permanent Court of Arbitration
Carnegieplein 2.
Peace Palace.
2517 KJ The Hague.
The Netherlands.
E-mail: rvaneekelen(at)pca-cpa.org.

E-Arbtitration-T received the notice that the International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration is currently considering applications for the position of Legal Counsel.

Qualifications:
Applicants should be native English speakers admitted to practice law in their home jurisdiction with a minimum of five years of work experience in international arbitration, public international law, or a related field. Excellent drafting and research skills are required; language skills in addition to English are desirable.

Description of Duties
As a member of the legal staff of the International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, located at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the duties of a Legal Counsel include assisting the Secretary-General and Senior Legal Staff as well as parties and arbitral tribunals on a variety of matters relating to arbitral procedure and dispute resolution generally. When acting as registrar or administrative secretary to arbitral tribunals in cases administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, members of the International Bureau perform administrative and research tasks on behalf of tribunals, organize and attend hearings, edit arbitral awards and procedural orders, and manage tribunal accounts.

They also assist with the provision of Permanent Court of Arbitration services under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, including the designation of appointing authorities and acting as appointing authority for arbitrator appointments and challenges.

Other duties include work on the various initiatives of the International Bureau, including development of regional facilities, drafting of new procedural rules, and increasing information flow regarding Permanent Court of Arbitration activities and services to the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s 104 Member States as well as other governments and institutions.

Remuneration
A competitive compensation package is offered for the post. Permanent Court of Arbitration salary levels are derived from the “Basic salary scales for OECD staff”, with an adjustment for the cost of living for The Hague, The Netherlands.

Interested individuals are invited to submit a curriculum vitae with covering letter (preferably by e-mail) by January 16, 2006 to:

Mr. R. van Eekelen
Permanent Court of Arbitration
Carnegieplein 2
Peace Palace
2517 KJ The Hague
The Netherlands
E-mail: rvaneekelen(at)pca-cpa.org

“The addition of the American Arbitration Association’s Labor Arbitration Awards distinguishes LexisNexis as the top provider for labor arbitration materials,” said George Bearese, senior vice president of Legal Product Management and Content Development, LexisNexis. “The unparalleled depth and breadth of the LexisNexis content combined with these labor arbitration decisions creates a powerful labor and employment offering.”

With arbitration providing prompt, final resolution to a host of workplace issues, its use in resolving labor and employment disputes is growing. The ability of attorneys, corporate counsel, labor relations specialists, information professionals and others to quickly and easily access the arbitration decisions provided through this alliance is critical. Historical arbitration decisions can assist with arbitrator selection, preparation for arbitration hearings and with the drafting of collective bargaining agreements. AAA has arbitrators across the United States who resolve labor and management disputes for the public and private sector in industries that include manufacturing, transportation, government, and utilities.

“We look forward to working with LexisNexis over the coming months to provide our extensive Labor Arbitration Awards to labor and employment practitioners,” said Ted Pons, vice president of publications, American Arbitration Association. “The robust content offerings and ease-of-use of the LexisNexis services puts these awards at the user’s fingertips to help answer arbitration-related questions.”

Kieran Flatt asks Alan Connarty, director of operations at the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, why his organisation is championing the cause of electronic dispute resolution in some cases.

In many of these disputes, the opposing parties may have very little to do with the UK. Alan Connarty, director of operations at the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb), says that England and Wales and specifically, London gets the business for three reasons: the efficiency of the process, trust in the local law and trust in the local law firms. But has he not heard the frequently voiced assertions that London risks losing business to more modern or dynamic jurisdictions Is this overstatement or fact

“It is a bit of both,” Connarty says. “Some of what is said on the subject is wild rumour. In the Far East technology is marching steadily onwards but I would hesitate to say that London is dragging its heels. It is true that some countries have modernised very rapidly and they are now going out to promote their jurisdiction as a convenient venue for both online and regular types of arbitration.”

So does CIArb disapprove of this behaviour No, Connarty says: “We encourage it very strongly. While we recognise the value of London we also support the sensible use of IT.”

In arbitration centres such as London, Rotterdam and Hamburg, CIArb would like to see more use of video conferencing and more commitment to electronic document management as a means of supporting mediation and arbitration.

Only in the past 12 months has CIArb begun to see the use of video conferencing for commercial disputes in London. “Video conferencing provides an opportunity for witness statements,” he says. “It enables an understanding by both parties of exactly what a witness has said.”

CIArb would also like to see the introduction of virtual courtrooms and is enthused by the work carried out by Court 21, a Leeds-based project linked to the citys university. Connarty describes the project as “very promising indeed”. Some of Court 21s work is expected to bear fruit in the next six months, with real, live dispute resolution systems on the market. Connarty expresses the hope that Court 21 will provide an integrated, end-to-end solution that can realistically be used for online mediation.

He also commends Lloyds for putting some of its open form shipping disputes into online resolution systems to cut costs and improve procedures. “This sort of dispute lends itself well to online resolution,” Connarty says. The American Arbitration Association (www.adr.org) has also gone online, setting up an office in Dublin for maritime arbitration, which uses an online procedure. Connarty says that even its detractors have to admit that the move “has provoked people to start thinking” more seriously about online dispute resolution.

In the US itself, there are several online technologies and video conferencing solutions used for arbitration and mediation. Taking these from a regional to a national level will be the next step forward for them, Connarty says. He adds that business in the US seems far more e-enabled than in Europe. “Traditionalists, and there are many in London, say they have not seen any demand for online arbitration,” he adds. “However, online dispute resolution is viable in the UK and most legal aspects can be addressed in English law.”

According to Connarty, online is shorthand for “cheaper and quicker”. “When law firms are talking to their clients, they should be offering them a variety of different forms of ADR,” he says. CIArb has estimated that in about 10% of cases, where it has been offered, clients have favoured the online option. Business, quite surprisingly, has been rather reluctant to use it.

Connarty sees the real challenge as persuading the parties to be more active in their use of modern facilities. “We are seeing a mix of participation,” he says. “For law firms and their clients, the challenge is to start using the internet as a communication tool for resolving disputes. Their concerns should be: is it confidential and private; is it secure I have seen no evidence to suggest that it is not.”

Source: Legal IT – online IT magazine”

“While daily filings with WIPO are less now than in the early days of the UDRP, we need to continue our efforts to ensure that the rights of legitimate trademark owners are not diluted,” said Mr. Francis Gurry, Deputy Director General of WIPO, who oversees the work of the Center. “Reducing the practice of cybersquatting is an important element in enabling the Internet to develop as a secure and reliable environment which inspires confidence on the part of the ever-growing number of Internet users,” he observed. “The fact that over 80 percent of the WIPO expert decisions went in favor of the trademark holder, be it a large multinational corporation or a small or medium-sized business, underlines the bad faith inherent in this practice,” Mr. Gurry further noted.

In 2003, the Center received 1,100 UDRP cases, averaging 3 cases per calendar day, similar to the daily filing rate during the previous year. While this is clearly an improvement compared to the 5 daily filings the Center received in the early days of the UDRP, it remains significant.

In addition to famous brands (recent WIPO cases include the domain names pepsi-smash.com, calvinklein-watches.com, rolexgroup.com), celebrities continue to be targeted by cybersquatters. Often their winning cases were based on common law rights in their names rather than on a registered trademark. In 2003, the Center received cases relating to movies, authors and books (jrrtolkien.com, thecatinthehat.com), pop stars (nsyncfilm.com, utadahikaru.com), television shows (oscartv.com, operaciontriunfo.tv), and movie stars (piercebrosnan.com, victoriarowell.com). Sports personalities (terrellowens.com) and sporting events (torino2006.net, madrid2012.org) were also the target of cybersquatters.

Companies involved in recent or prospective mergers also fell prey to cybersquatters. The Center has recently dealt with cases involving domain names such as yellowroadway.com, japanairgases.com, konicaminolta.net, astrazenica.com, which were all newly created following recent or predicted mergers.

The UDRP, which was proposed by WIPO and accepted as an international standard for resolving domain name disputes, is designed specifically to discourage and resolve the abusive registration of trademarks as domain names. Under the UDRP, which became effective in December 1999, a complainant must demonstrate that the disputed domain is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark, that the respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the domain name and that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith.

A few facts

- In 2003 the Center dealt with 56 cases involving country code top-level domains (ccTLDs), a 40 percent increase over the previous year. Cases dealt with by the Center have included the domain names bodyshop.as, nutella.bz, amazon.com.cy and yahoo.ph. The Center now provides services for disputes in 36 ccTLDs, including .au (Australia), .mx (Mexico) and .nl (Netherlands). The Center was further designated to provide services under a new dispute resolution procedure which is to apply to the Swiss .ch domain as of March 1, 2004.

- The Centers experts are frequently called upon to decide cases that involve high-value brands. The WIPO Center so far has resolved cases involving 66 of the 100 largest brands by value, including 7 of the top 10 such brands (Interbrand Brand survey 2003).

- The Centers services are multinational and multilingual. So far, parties to WIPO UDRP disputes have come from 116 different countries. In 2003, the Center added three languages (Dutch, Italian and Russian) to the nine case languages it has used to date, namely, Chinese, English, French, German, Japanese, Korean, Norwegian, Portuguese and Spanish. Domain names themselves may also be presented in different scripts, such as Chinese, Cyrillic or Korean. The Center has handled 36 such “multilingual name” disputes so far, with further growth expected.

- All domain name decisions handled by the Center are fully indexed and published on the Centers web site (http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/search/index.html).

- In addition to its domain name activities, the WIPO Center is increasingly called upon to provide arbitration and mediation services for all types of intellectual property disputes, such as disputes involving patent, trademark or copyright licensing. For this purpose, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center makes available model arbitration and mediation clauses which can be downloaded from its web site at “http://arbiter.wipo.int/arbitration/contract-clauses/index.html”.

For further information about all the activities of the Center, please visit the Centers web site at “http://arbiter.wipo.int”