World Intellectual Property Organisation's experience in domain dispute resolution
Authors:   Russian State Academy of Intellectual Property, Sergo Anton G. , Romanenkova Ekaterina I. ,   ConsultantPlus company
Published: February 2023

The current pace of development of information technology is such that no country's legal system can objectively keep up with its adequate regulation. As a consequence, the Internet community is looking for its own, equally reliable and effective, but fast and modern systems of fair resolution of conflicts that arise between the rightholders of various classic means of individualisation (usually trademarks) and domain names. In today's hightech world, the role and importance of domain names cannot be underestimated. They control destinies, prepare revolutions, crush cults and shape national politics. Their ability to easily personalize any information resource in cyberspace is highly valued by specialists in a variety of fields. Their number in the world (over 320 million) and in our country (5 million) exceeds many times the number of any other means of individualization, but the domain name as an object of law has not been sufficiently defined in the Russian legislation to this day. Despite this, domains have long been sold and bought and there have been numerous and costly court battles over them. The Russian-speaking reader is familiar with the judicial processes for resolving such disputes. However, out-of-court means of resolving such cases, little known to our readers, are in demand in foreign practice. They are used in the domain area not only to address the claims of holders of traditional means of individualization to domain owners, but also in disputes between domain name registrars in the transfer of the domain between them on the application of third parties, if the domain registration does not meet the requirements of the domain zone, the requirements to suspend the registration of domain names in new domain zones, etc. The need to develop alternative dispute resolution systems was driven by conflicting court practices and the search for a way to resolve domain disputes in a fast, not very expensive and efficient procedure, given that such disputes were often extraterritorial in nature. The latter is easier to explain with an example. For example, one of the largest domestic construction companies faced a situation where a domain similar to its name in a foreign zone was registered through an Australian registrar for a resident of Great Britain, and the content site provided by ill-wishers from the Moscow region. In such circumstances, going to court in Russia or the UK was ineffective because the execution of the decision was to be secured from the domain registrar. At the same time, there were no grounds to sue the registrar (in Australia) because it did not violate anyone's rights. This situation is typical when registering a domain in an "international" or foreign domain zone, as the registrar's country of origin is usually irrelevant to the user, as opposed to the price. Of course, recourse to the traditional justice system is possible in such a situation, but not everyone can afford the time and money required to resolve it. Contribution of the authors: the authors contributed equally to this article. The authors declare no conflicts of interests.