WIPO arbitration

The harmonization of international intellectual property rights (IPRs) within multilateral trade agreements presents a complex challenge due to differing national legal frameworks, economic disparities, and geopolitical tensions. This paper explores the complexities involved in aligning intellectual property (IP) regulations across countries within the context of multilateral trade agreements such as the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The study evaluates historical developments, key challenges, and the influence of major international organizations like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The research highlights the impact of economic and technological advancements on the global IP regime and assesses the political and legal difficulties in achieving a cohesive framework. The paper concludes by discussing potential pathways to improve harmonization efforts while addressing the structural imbalances that impede progress.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in an information retrieval system or transcribed in any form or by any means -electronic, digital, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise -without the express written permission of the publisher and the holder of copyright. Although every care has been taken in publishing the book, the author, publisher and printer shall not be responsible for any loss or damage caused to any person on account of errors or omissions which might have crept in. The publisher shall be obliged if mistakes are brought to their notice for carrying out corrections in the next edition. Submit all inquiries and requests to the publisher: Satyam Books Pvt. Ltd. NEW DELHI, INDIA.

WIPOD – Arbitration and Mediation Matters: Transcript of Episode 7
WIPO ADR for Video Games and eSports Disputes
Selin Ozturk

Pop quiz. What's your favorite video game?

Leonid Shmatenko

Zelda.

Selin Ozturk

I love Zelda.

Alexia Gkoritsa

This is my medallion. It's hamming. No, it's a Witcher. It's the Witcher 3.

wipo.int/en/web/podcasts/amc/transcripts/arbitration-and-mediation-matters-08

The call for international or universal patent protection has intensified in response to the recognized necessity of safeguarding intellectual property rights. The current system, characterized by fragmented national or regional patent rights, presents challenges in terms of recognition, protection, and enforcement, exacerbating the risk of infringement. However, the development of an international patent system with unitary effect has been slow or non-existent. Proponents argue that such a system would offer enhanced protection and foster innovation and economic growth by providing simultaneous protection across multiple territories with a single application having unitary effect. Despite efforts towards harmonization, significant disparities persist in procedural laws across national and regional patent systems, underscoring the enduring influence of territoriality. An international patent system holds the potential to address the challenges posed by territoriality, potentially reshaping patent rights in a global context.

In the recent past, there have been several cases of ‘cyber-squatting’ of celebrity names by Indian
domain name holders. Almost decade ago, former US President and entrepreneur Donald Trump
sought damages to the tune of USD 400000 against a Brooklyn-based man for having acquired and
registered domain names ‘trumpindia.com’ and ‘trumpmumbai.com’ after it was announced in 2007
that the real estate mogul had plans to set up Trump-hotels in India in Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore.
Even before that, Hollywood actress and Academy Award winner, Julia Roberts faced a slew of cybersquatters
from India, having attempted to acquire domain name registration of her own, very
identifiable name. More recently, Mark Zuckerberg paid a sum of USD 700 to purchase the domain
“maxchanzuckerberg.com” from a boy in Kochi, who proudly admitted to having registered not one,
but more such names, even “hashtagging” his Facebook status update with “#cyber_squatting!”.
Most cases of domain name cyber-squatting are resolved via the INDRP dispute resolution rules,
an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for ‘.in’ domain names in India; or at the WIPO
Arbitration and Mediation Centre, following the UDRP Rules. However, this paper seeks to address
the question of right of publicity of the celebrities whose names have been misappropriated by the
cyber-squatters. While remedies against unlawful taking of domain names may be claimed under
Trademark Law or the common law passing off doctrine, more often than not, these cases also raise
concerns of right of publicity. For example, in the case of the “tatacyrusmistry.com” domain name,
the WIPO Tribunal did, albeit in passing, bring up the rights of publicity of the plaintiff, in furtherance
of observations of the Delhi High Court (‘Delhi HC’). The right of publicity, most simply put, protects
any individual’s marketable image or persona. While the right has always been envisaged as an
economic right in India, similar to, however distinct from the passing -off remedy, Justice Kaul, in his
separate opinion in the Supreme Court’s Puttaswamy decision, (that clarified the position of the right
to privacy as a fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution), went a step further.
He elevated the right of publicity, otherwise having been previously enunciated only as a common law
right,1 to a being a facet of the fundamental guarantee of privacy.The conception of fundamental rights has always carried with itself its inherent inalienability, as
opposed to the conception of property rights, which carries with itself a distinct characteristic of
transferability. Thus, while most property disputes are arbitrable, including private disputes in relation
to intellectual property, 2 questions of fundamental rights are NOT open to adjudication by private
methods, as they relate to rights in rem and not rights in personam.3
This paper shall thus address the nature of the right of publicity, and whether Justice Kaul made
an inadvertent error in equating an economic in personam interest to a fundamental right, an in rem
interest, that is otherwise non-arbitrable, in light of the celebrity domain name arbitration cases. In
reaching this conclusion, the paper shall look at both the primary rules and case rulings under the
WIPO-UDRP, the auDRP and the INDRP as well as court decisions in India on personal name
trademarks and passing off, alongside other case studies of actual practice and secondary materials
such as other scholarly works on personality rights and personal domain name arbitration; thereby
seeking to propose a methodology of how and why private arbitral tribunals can address right of
publicity claims, as they continue to do.

All states require that patents be issued only for "useful" inventions. But recent decisions in Canada surrounding the invocation of the "promise of the patent" have provoked controversy both at home and internationally, with some alleging that they represent a novel and unjustified increase to the stringency of Canada's utility standard. This paper shows that these allegations are unfounded. The promise of the patent has a long history in Canadian and British patent law, and one that possesses sound policy justifications. Equally, promises are recognized and enforced under various guises by the patent law of the United States, Australia, New Zealand and the European Patent Office. The paper concludes by examining some of the open issues and unanswered questions that exist in courts' approach to promises contained in patents. * The authors were greatly assisted by comments from lawyers who act for both innovator and generic drug companies, as well as judges and academics in Canada, the United States, Europe, and Australia, some of whom, for professional reasons, preferred not to be acknowledged. In alphabetical order, the authors would like to thank

La “Política Uniforme para la Resolución de Controversias en Materia
de Nombres de Dominio” de la Corporación de Asignación de Nombres y Números de Internet (ICANN), ofrece una opción expedita, eficiente y económica, para resolver conflictos que surjan entre el titular de un nombre de dominio y un tercero, por el registro y utilización abusiva de un nombre de dominio, sea genérico de nivel superior (gTLD), o con los dominios correspondientes a códigos de países (ccTLD) que hayan adoptado voluntariamente la Política, tal y como es el caso de Venezuela.

This monograph addresses the complexity of legal issues arising as a result of the deployment of international investment agreements (IIAs), as substantive regulatory and enforcement devices, for the protection of intellectual property rights. Its overriding analytical framework, proposes that Philip Morris and Eli Lilly’s attempt at using investment based IPR clauses to avoid municipal legal measures, is ultimately a signal toward a fundamental transformation of the manner in which property is territorially conceived, legitimatised and regulated, in international and municipal law.

El aumento considerable de disputas entre los titulares de estos registros y los titulares marcarios, que no hace sino poner sobre la mesa la necesidad de un mecanismo de solución rápida de confl ictos. Ante estas controversias, la OMPI, por medio de la Política Uniforme vino a establecer un marco jurídico para la solución de todas aquellas controversias que pudieran surgir entre el titular de un dominio y un tercero por el registro y uso abusivos de un nombre de dominio en Internet. Tres fueron los criterios acogidos por la ICANN para la correcta solución de estas disputas: i) que el nombre de dominio sea «idéntico o similar hasta el punto de crear confusión con respecto a una marca de productos o de servicios sobre la que el demandante tiene derechos»; ii) que el titular del nombre de dominio no tenga «derechos o intereses legítimos» respecto del nombre de dominio en cuestión, y iii) que el nombre de dominio ha sido «registrado y utilizado de mala fe». Más de 14.000 demandas avalan este procedimiento siendo uno de los recursos más utilizados por los titulares marcarios para solicitar sus pretensiones. El objeto de las siguientes páginas será es estudio a través de las resoluciones de los últimos años de los expertos (principalmente españoles) sobre estos tres criterios.

Un dominio de Internet es un nombre único que identifica a un sitio web en Internet. El propósito principal de los nombres de dominio en Internet y del sistema de nombres de dominio (DNS), es traducir las direcciones IP de cada nodo activo en la red, a términos memorizables y fáciles de encontrar. Esta abstracción hace posible que cualquier servicio (de red) pueda moverse de un lugar geográfico a otro en la Internet, aun cuando el cambio implique que tendrá una dirección IP diferente.1 Sin la ayuda del sistema de nombres de dominio, los usuarios de Internet tendrían que acceder a cada servicio web utilizando la dirección IP del nodo (por ejemplo, sería necesario utilizar http://192.0.32.10 en vez de http://example.com). Además, reduciría el número de webs posibles, ya que actualmente es habitual que una misma dirección IP sea compartida por varios dominios. URL frente a nombre de dominio[editar] El siguiente ejemplo ilustra la diferencia entre una URL (uniform resource locator o «localizador de recurso uniforme») y un nombre de dominio: