{"title":"商标-域名接口的国际争议解决","authors":"L. Helfer","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.265922","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay identifies some of the emerging legal issues relating to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (\"UDRP\"), a new anational online dispute settlement system established by a private, non-profit corporation, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers in late 1999. The UDRP creates a fast and inexpensive mechanism for trademark owners to recapture domain names held by persons who, in bad faith, register and use domain names that are confusingly similar to those marks.The UDRP is worthy of serious study for at least two reasons. First and foremost, the process by which the UDRP was created, and the way in which it is structured, departs significantly from preexisting approaches to international dispute settlement, not only for intellectual property rights but also for international law generally. These differences in creation and structure raise questions about the UDRP's legitimacy and thus the legitimacy of the case law it is producing.Second, UDRP is already being heralded by national and international lawmakers as a model for resolving a much broader set of transborder legal problems. Although certain aspects of the UDRP may be worthy of emulation, this essay asks some hard questions about how anational dispute settlement systems ought to be structured. It focuses in particular on the mechanisms used to control the limited powers granted to dispute settlement decisionmakers such as UDRP panels. And it proposes several steps that ICANN should take to bolster the legitimacy of this new dispute settlement system.","PeriodicalId":82287,"journal":{"name":"Pepperdine law review","volume":"29 1","pages":"87"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.265922","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"International Dispute Settlement at the Trademark-Domain Name Interface\",\"authors\":\"L. Helfer\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.265922\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This essay identifies some of the emerging legal issues relating to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (\\\"UDRP\\\"), a new anational online dispute settlement system established by a private, non-profit corporation, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers in late 1999. The UDRP creates a fast and inexpensive mechanism for trademark owners to recapture domain names held by persons who, in bad faith, register and use domain names that are confusingly similar to those marks.The UDRP is worthy of serious study for at least two reasons. First and foremost, the process by which the UDRP was created, and the way in which it is structured, departs significantly from preexisting approaches to international dispute settlement, not only for intellectual property rights but also for international law generally. These differences in creation and structure raise questions about the UDRP's legitimacy and thus the legitimacy of the case law it is producing.Second, UDRP is already being heralded by national and international lawmakers as a model for resolving a much broader set of transborder legal problems. Although certain aspects of the UDRP may be worthy of emulation, this essay asks some hard questions about how anational dispute settlement systems ought to be structured. It focuses in particular on the mechanisms used to control the limited powers granted to dispute settlement decisionmakers such as UDRP panels. And it proposes several steps that ICANN should take to bolster the legitimacy of this new dispute settlement system.\",\"PeriodicalId\":82287,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pepperdine law review\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"87\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.265922\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pepperdine law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.265922\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pepperdine law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.265922","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
摘要
本文阐述了与统一域名争议解决政策(“UDRP”)相关的一些新出现的法律问题。统一域名争议解决政策(“UDRP”)是由一家私营的非营利性公司——互联网名称与数字地址分配公司(Internet corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers)于1999年底建立的一种新的全国性在线争议解决系统。UDRP为商标所有人建立了一种快速和廉价的机制,以夺回恶意注册和使用与这些商标令人混淆的域名的人所拥有的域名。UDRP至少有两个理由值得认真研究。首先也是最重要的是,《解决世界争端方案》的建立过程及其结构方式,不仅在知识产权方面,而且在一般国际法方面,都与先前存在的国际争端解决办法有很大的不同。这些在创建和结构上的差异使人们对UDRP的合法性以及由此产生的判例法的合法性产生了疑问。其次,UDRP已经被国家和国际立法者奉为解决更广泛的跨境法律问题的典范。虽然UDRP的某些方面可能值得效仿,但本文提出了一些关于国家争端解决系统应该如何构建的难题。它特别侧重于用来控制授予争端解决方案小组等争端解决决策者的有限权力的机制。它还提出了ICANN应该采取的几个步骤,以加强这一新的争议解决系统的合法性。
International Dispute Settlement at the Trademark-Domain Name Interface
This essay identifies some of the emerging legal issues relating to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP"), a new anational online dispute settlement system established by a private, non-profit corporation, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers in late 1999. The UDRP creates a fast and inexpensive mechanism for trademark owners to recapture domain names held by persons who, in bad faith, register and use domain names that are confusingly similar to those marks.The UDRP is worthy of serious study for at least two reasons. First and foremost, the process by which the UDRP was created, and the way in which it is structured, departs significantly from preexisting approaches to international dispute settlement, not only for intellectual property rights but also for international law generally. These differences in creation and structure raise questions about the UDRP's legitimacy and thus the legitimacy of the case law it is producing.Second, UDRP is already being heralded by national and international lawmakers as a model for resolving a much broader set of transborder legal problems. Although certain aspects of the UDRP may be worthy of emulation, this essay asks some hard questions about how anational dispute settlement systems ought to be structured. It focuses in particular on the mechanisms used to control the limited powers granted to dispute settlement decisionmakers such as UDRP panels. And it proposes several steps that ICANN should take to bolster the legitimacy of this new dispute settlement system.