World Intellectual Property Organization: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Applied modification ruleset: Corrections using AWB-ICW patterns |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{Organization| | ||
|city = Geneva | |||
|country = Switzerland | |||
|date_founded = 1967 | |||
| | |facebook = [http://www.facebook.com/pages/World-Intellectual-Property-Organization/112467222103778 WIPO Facebook] | ||
| | |focus = | ||
|founders = | |||
|linkedin = [http://www.linkedin.com/company/wipo WIPO LinkedIn] | |||
| country | |logo = WipoLogo.png | ||
| | |organization_type = Non-Profit | ||
|ownership = | |||
|subsidiaries = | |||
|website = http://www.wipo.int//portal/index.html.en | |||
|x = | |||
| facebook | |||
| linkedin | |||
| | |||
| | |||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 34: | Line 29: | ||
WIPO currently contains 184 member states.<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/members/en/ Member States of WIPO]</ref> This constitutes more than 90% of the countries around the world. Every Member State has a Secretariat who is responsible for conducting and organizing meetings and events. These Secretariats are often celebrated specialists in IP, law, economics, public policies, IT and administration. | WIPO currently contains 184 member states.<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/members/en/ Member States of WIPO]</ref> This constitutes more than 90% of the countries around the world. Every Member State has a Secretariat who is responsible for conducting and organizing meetings and events. These Secretariats are often celebrated specialists in IP, law, economics, public policies, IT and administration. | ||
WIPO works in collaboration with its members. The strategic route of WIPO is determined by the Member States. Meetings are carried out in committees, general assemblies, and working groups. These three wings constitute the decision making bodies of WIPO.<ref>[http://www.asil.org/rio/wipo.html Reports on International Organizations]</ref><ref>[http://www.wipo.int//erecruitment/en/ Working at WIPO]</ref> | WIPO works in collaboration with its members. The strategic route of WIPO is determined by the Member States. Meetings are carried out in committees, general assemblies, and working groups. These three wings constitute the decision-making bodies of WIPO.<ref>[http://www.asil.org/rio/wipo.html Reports on International Organizations]</ref><ref>[http://www.wipo.int//erecruitment/en/ Working at WIPO]</ref> | ||
===How to become a member state of WIPO?=== | ===How to become a member state of WIPO?=== | ||
| Line 62: | Line 57: | ||
'''Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS)''': The [[URS]] format has demands in many fields. Some modalities like timelines have been tweaked, but there are many serious problems that are still unaddressed. To safeguard the URS format, [[ICANN]] must make sensible decisions and come up with a policy. | '''Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS)''': The [[URS]] format has demands in many fields. Some modalities like timelines have been tweaked, but there are many serious problems that are still unaddressed. To safeguard the URS format, [[ICANN]] must make sensible decisions and come up with a policy. | ||
'''Post Delegation Dispute Resolution (PDDRP)''': WIPO’s suggestion of establishing a [[PDDRP|Post Delegation Dispute Resolution]] has been taken up by [[ICANN]]. However, the gains that are made as a result of registration activities breach t3rd party rights. Thus, there should be a positive collaboration with a long term view. | '''Post Delegation Dispute Resolution (PDDRP)''': WIPO’s suggestion of establishing a [[PDDRP|Post Delegation Dispute Resolution]] has been taken up by [[ICANN]]. However, the gains that are made as a result of registration activities breach t3rd party rights. Thus, there should be a positive collaboration with a long-term view. | ||
* 9th March, 2011--Observation of Arbitration and Mediation Center of WIPO on scorecard of GAC on protection of rights and [[ICANN]] Board’s corresponding questions<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/icann090311.pdf Observation of Arbitration and Mediation Center of WIPO on scorecard of GAC on protection of rights and ICANN Board’s corresponding questions]</ref> | * 9th March, 2011--Observation of Arbitration and Mediation Center of WIPO on scorecard of GAC on protection of rights and [[ICANN]] Board’s corresponding questions<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/icann090311.pdf Observation of Arbitration and Mediation Center of WIPO on scorecard of GAC on protection of rights and ICANN Board’s corresponding questions]</ref> | ||
| Line 69: | Line 64: | ||
'''Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS)''': The [[URS]] was always for prima facie, so operating as a substitute of the [[UDRP]] should be avoided. [[ICANN]] must clarify what should be the certification criteria to ground the examiners in trademark practice and law. [[ICANN]] must also clarify whether an examiner should be internal or external with respect to the provider. Track record of the providers in relevant jurisprudence training must be considered. | '''Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS)''': The [[URS]] was always for prima facie, so operating as a substitute of the [[UDRP]] should be avoided. [[ICANN]] must clarify what should be the certification criteria to ground the examiners in trademark practice and law. [[ICANN]] must also clarify whether an examiner should be internal or external with respect to the provider. Track record of the providers in relevant jurisprudence training must be considered. | ||
'''Post Delegation Dispute Resolution (PDDRP)''': The resolve of [[ICANN]] to limit [[PDDRP]]’s scope is a big task for this sort of [[RPM]]. The [[PDDRP]] provides a means to owners of the trademark so that they address the breach without much difficulty. They | '''Post Delegation Dispute Resolution (PDDRP)''': The resolve of [[ICANN]] to limit [[PDDRP]]’s scope is a big task for this sort of [[RPM]]. The [[PDDRP]] provides a means to owners of the trademark so that they address the breach without much difficulty. They don't need to go through costly, time-consuming and repetitive mechanisms. | ||
* 2nd December, 2010--WIPO’s comments of Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook of [[ICANN]]<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/icann021210.pdf WIPO’s comments of Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook of ICANN]</ref> | * 2nd December, 2010--WIPO’s comments of Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook of [[ICANN]]<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/icann021210.pdf WIPO’s comments of Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook of ICANN]</ref> | ||
| Line 108: | Line 103: | ||
# [[ICANN]] must focus more on mechanisms rather then amending the [[UDRP]], which will yield better results and will help in the long run | # [[ICANN]] must focus more on mechanisms rather then amending the [[UDRP]], which will yield better results and will help in the long run | ||
# The [[UDRP]]’s integrity depends more on the UDRP providers chosen by [[ICANN]] | # The [[UDRP]]’s integrity depends more on the UDRP providers chosen by [[ICANN]] | ||
== Legal Rights Objections: New gTLD Program== | |||
WIPO was appointed the exclusive provider of dispute resolution services for trademark based “pre-delegation” Legal Rights Objections | |||
under ICANN’s New gTLD Program. In summary, "Prior to ICANN’s approval of a New gTLD, third parties may file a formal objection to an application on several grounds, including, for trademark owners and Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs), on the basis of a “Legal Rights Objection.”When such an objection is filed, an independent panel (comprised of one or three experts) will determine whether the applicant’s potential use of the applied-for gTLD would be likely to infringe (described below) the objector’s existing trademark, or IGO name or acronym."<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/ LRO, WIPO.int]Retrieved 25 March 2013</ref> WIPO received a total of 41 objections to administer.<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/cases/ Cases, LRO, WIPO.int] Retrieved 25 March 2013</ref> | |||
==Number of UDRP Cases Filed with the WIPO Center== | ==Number of UDRP Cases Filed with the WIPO Center== | ||
Based on the latest statistics released by the WIPO Center, there were 2,764 cybersquatting cases filed involving 4,781 domain names in 2011. Since the implementation of UDRP in 1999, there were 22,500 UDRP based cases filed involving 40,500 ccTLDs and gTLDs.<ref> | Based on the latest statistics released by the WIPO Center, there were 2,764 cybersquatting cases filed involving 4,781 domain names in 2011. Since the implementation of the UDRP in 1999, there were 22,500 UDRP based cases filed involving 40,500 ccTLDs and gTLDs.<ref> | ||
[http://www.domainnews.com/en/wipo-released-2011-cybersquatting-stats-2764-udrp-cases-covering-4781-domain-names-in-2011.html WIPO Released 2011 Cybersquatting Stats ! 2,764 UDRP cases covering 4,781 domain names in 2011]</ref> | [http://www.domainnews.com/en/wipo-released-2011-cybersquatting-stats-2764-udrp-cases-covering-4781-domain-names-in-2011.html WIPO Released 2011 Cybersquatting Stats ! 2,764 UDRP cases covering 4,781 domain names in 2011]</ref> | ||
==Overturned UDRP Cases== | ==Overturned UDRP Cases== | ||
Some of the | Some of the more controversial UDRP cases handled by the WIPO Center involved 22 domain names including publicstorge.com, pulicstorage.com and puplicstorage.com which were transferred to Public Storage after the UDRP Panel found that the domain names were registered in bad faith by the respondents in the case-Texas International Property Associates (TIPA) also referred to as "Receivers".<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2010-1782 Public Storage v. Texas International Property Associates]</ref><ref>[http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/case.jsp?case_id=18339 WIPO Case D2010-1053]</ref> The decision of the UDRP Panel to transfer the 22 domains from the Receiver to the legitimates owners of trademarks was overturned by Senior Judge Royal Furgeson of the Northern Texas District Court on January 10th, 2012. Judge Fergeson ordered [[Fabulous.com]] to disregard the decision of the UDRP Panel and to transfer back the domain names to the Receivers. He also ordered ICANN to stay and abate the UDRP proceedings and to file a notice of compliance to the court.<ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2012/01/12/wow-judge-orders-udrp-transfers-including-apple-typo-to-be-reversed/ Wow: Judge orders UDRP transfers, including Apple typo, to be reversed]</ref> ICANN filed a motion to the court to vacate its ruling granting the Receiver’s Emergency Motion to Stay in December, 2011. ICANN argued that it has no authority to abate the UDRP Panel proceedings. The court denied ICANN's motion.<ref> | ||
[http://bretbucket.s3.amazonaws.com/Order-ICANNStay.pdf ORDER DENYING NON-PARTY INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS’ MOTION TO VACATE]</ref> | [http://bretbucket.s3.amazonaws.com/Order-ICANNStay.pdf ORDER DENYING NON-PARTY INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS’ MOTION TO VACATE]</ref> | ||
==References== | == References == | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
[[Category: Organizations]] | [[Category: Organizations]] | ||