The only practical effect that Advocacy can foresee is to lengthen the time-frame of dispute resolutions and to increase greatly the cost of being involved in a dispute. Because of the success of court litigation and the opportunity for abuse by large trademark holders, Advocacy believes that the mandatory arbitration process should be not be recommended in WIPO's final report. Instead, disputes should be resolved using existing trademark law in national courts. This process has been effective to date and Advocacy seems no reason to believe it will be otherwise in the future. Should Be Limited Advocacy is also concerned that the submission to jurisdiction requirement in the Interim Report could have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Advocacy recommends a much more narrow submission of jurisdiction.
Due to the global nature of the Internet, a requirement for submission to jurisdiction in a country where the harm occurred would permit a suit to be brought in any country in the world. Advocacy believes that an applicant only be required to submit to jurisdiction in the country of its domicile and to the country where the registrar the applicant is using is located. Advocacy believes that this submission to jurisdiction is fair, because the applicant must make an affirmative act to register and hopefully will soon be able to choose among many different registrars for one convenient to it. Therefore, the applicant will know exactly in which countries it is subject to jurisdiction. Also, well-known marks are often only given protection to when a confusingly similar mark is used in the same goods and services.