1. Envisaged WIPO domain name dispute resolution services for the ccTLD
Envisaged WIPO domain name dispute resolution services for the ccTLD .UA (Ukraine)
Kiev December 7, 2018
Charlotte Spencer, WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

2. WIPO: The Leading Global UDRP Provider
WIPO Center Staff
20+ nationalities / languages
Senior Legal Staff / Case Managers
Case Secretariat
IT Support
WIPO Domain Name Panelists
Public Panel Roster
Nearly 500 experts
Representing nearly 60 countries
30 WIPO Center Staff Members
There are some 500 WIPO DN Panelists
*************************
The WIPO Center was the first provider to be accredited by ICANN and the first to receive cases under the UDRP Policy. Its expertise to administer domain name disputes stems from its involvement in the international process conducted by WIPO at the request of its member States which led to the UDRP Policy and Rules. The WIPO Center also has specialist knowledge in intellectual property and considerable experience in dispute resolution administration generally.

3. WIPO UDRP Case Statistics
Average 10/15 cases per day (over 3,000 per year)
From 1 to 1,500 domain names per case
Parties from over 170 countries
Proceedings administered in over 20 languages
Real-time statistics on WIPO UDRP cases

4. WIPO Filing Trends Over Time (Average of 10 new cases per working day)
Here is a graph showing the WIPO DN Case filing trends for the past decade.
On average, at least 10 new cases per working day
So far this year, over 3000 cases.
* Reflects total domain name cases filed as of December 4, 2018

5. WIPO ccTLD program
Some 75 ccTLDs use WIPO for dispute resolution services
Since January 2000, WIPO has administered over 4,900 ccTLD cases
New WIPO ccTLDs additions:
2017: .EU (European Union), .SE (Sweden)
2018: .AI (Anguilla), .GE (Georgia), .PY (Paraguay)

6. Top 10 WIPO ccTLDs in 2018 .NL – 67 cases .SE – 64 cases
.ES – 46 cases
.CO – 40 cases
.MX – 37 cases
.AU – 37 cases
.EU – 31 cases
.IR – 18 cases
.CH – 18 cases
.CC – 18 cases
(As of December 4, 2018)

7. WIPO ccTLD Experience Sample cases in 2018:
WIPO Case No. DAU <skittles.com.au>
WIPO Case No. DSE <myaudi.se>
WIPO Case No. DNL <ikeaipteam.nl>
WIPO Case No. DMX <bmwplanta.com.mx>
WIPO Case No. DEU <instagram.eu>

8. Updated WIPO ccTLD web pages
Contain information and resources for over 75 WIPO ccTLDs
Registration agreement
WhoIs search tools
Dispute resolution policy/rules
Model pleadings
Eligibility criteria
Supported characters

9. Updated WIPO ccTLD web page example
Highlights key differences between specific ccTLD policy and the UDRP

10. WIPO ccTLD Database Contains links to the websites of over 250 ccTLDs
Assists practitioners in determining the applicable registration agreement, WhoIs, and applicable ADR procedure

11. What are the Principal Advantages of ADR?
Time-effective
60-75 days
Cost-effective
fixed fees
Predictable
Registry Neutrality
The main advantage of the Administrative Procedure is that it typically provides a faster and cheaper way to resolve a dispute regarding the registration and use of an Internet domain name than going to court. In addition, the procedures are considerably more informal than litigation and the decision-makers are experts in such areas as international trademark law, domain name issues, electronic commerce, the Internet and dispute resolution. It is also international in scope: it provides a single mechanism for resolving a domain name dispute regardless of where the registrar or the domain name holder or the complainant are located.
Advantages
Facilitates streamlined acceptance (no major changes to Registration Agreement)
Builds on UDRP credibility (fair and predictable)
Registry neutrality
Independent of ccTLD registration and administration
“Outsourcing” the dispute between registrant and a third party allows a registry to defray corresponding burdens and risks corresponding to a dispute concerning a domain name registration within its ccTLD

12. What are the options?
Each ccTLD Registry is vested with authority to determine which, if any, RPMs to adopt
Dispute Resolution Models:
UDRP
UDRP variations
Expedited Arbitration
UDRP constitutes an excellent reference model and has proven to be an efficient ADR mechanism.
It is possible to consolidate gTLD domain names and ccTLD domain names (when the ccTLD adopts the UDRP) in the same procedure, when the respondent is the same for all domain names.

13. WIPO ccTLDs that have adopted the UDRP
.AG, .AI, .AS, .BM, .BS, .BZ, .CC, .CD, .CO, .CY, .DJ, .EC, .FJ, .FM, .GD, .GT, .KI, .LA, .LC, .MD, .ME, .MW, .NR, .NU, .PA, .PK, .PN, .PR, .PW, .RO, .SC, .SL, .SO, .TJ, .TT, .TV, .UG, .VE, .VG, .WS
Consolidation with gTLDs is possible
Sample cases in 2018:
WIPO Case No. DAS <bnpparip.as>
WIPO Case No. DCO <ikea.com.co>
WIPO Case No. D <casinovlk.com>,
<club-vulkan.tv>, <velcam-delux.co>, <vlk.me>, <vulcandelux.cc>, et. al.
40 ccTLS
UDRP constitutes an excellent reference model and has proven to be an efficient ADR mechanism.
It is possible to consolidate gTLD domain names and ccTLD domain names (when the ccTLD adopts the UDRP) in the same procedure, when the respondent is the same for all domain names.

14. WIPO ccTLD (UDRP) Variations
WIPO ccTLDs that have adopted a variation of the UDRP
.AE and امارات., .AO, .AU, .BO, .BR, .CH, .CR, .DO, .ES, .EU, .FR, .GE, .HN, .IE, .IR, .LI, .MA, .MP, .MX, .NL, .PE, .PH, .PM, .PY, .QA andقطر., .RE, .SE, .TF, .TM, .TZ, .WF, .YT
Key advantages
Tailored to the local attributes of the ccTLD
Balances parties’ interest in predictability, fairness, efficiency, and local needs of ccTLD
32 CCTLDS

15. Envisaged .UA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
Expected to be implemented during the first semester of 2019
Applicable only to second-level domain name registrations in the .UA public domain
Contractually mandated
The .UA Policy and .UA Rules shall be included in all .UA registration agreement
Administrative process with court options preserved

16. The Substantive Test Complainant must show, on balance:
Trademark identical or confusingly similar to the domain name;
Lack of registrant rights or legitimate interests; and
Domain name registered or used in bad faith.

17. Envisaged .UA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
Scope of rights protected
For clear-cut cases of trademark abuse
Bad faith registration “or” use
Mutual Jurisdiction
Courts of Ukraine

18. Envisaged .UA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
Remedies
Transfer or cancellation
Eligibility criteria
Complainant must meet the ccTLD’s eligibility criteria in case it requests transfer of the domain name
Language
Proceedings in English, Russian and Ukrainian
Fees
1,500 USD

19. Procedure at a glance Actors:
Hostmaster Ltd, .UA Registrars, Registrant, Complainant
Sole provider: WIPO

20. Role of the .UA Registrars
Lock of the disputed domain name
Provide Registrant’s contact details
Name and address
Implement Panel’s decisions

21. Contact and Further Information
WIPO Center Contact Page
Thank you!