Making Sense of the Cybercrime Courts’ Jurisdiction Over Cybersquatting Cases in Light of the Concurrent Jurisdiction of World Intellectual Property Organization Panels Pursuant to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy

Ateneo Law Journal vol. 64:983 2020

62 Pages Posted: 31 Jul 2023

See all articles by Julianne Alberto

Julianne Alberto

University of Michigan at Ann Arbor

Jose Ryan Pelongco

Ateneo de Manila University; Kyushu University - Graduate School of Law; Ateneo de Manila University - Ateneo Law School

Date Written: 2020

Abstract

In 2017, when Instagram, LLC found out that “instagram.tv” had been registered by an individual who resided in China, the company sought a transfer of domain name before the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center, on the basis that the registrant had no interest owning the domain. Meanwhile, the Educational Testing Services (ETS) of Princeton, which conducts the popular Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), discovered that an “ieltstoefl.com” existed online. IELTS or the International English Language Testing System turned out to be a competitor service, which led to the TOEFL provider asserting before the WIPO that The International English Literacy Training Services and Tutelage of English & Foreign Linguistics Centre in New Delhi, India had no legitimate interest in registering “ieltstoefl.com.”

This Article examines how, as in the case of Instagram and ETS, WIPO panelists, applying the provision of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), have justified the continuation, suspension, or termination of cybersquatting complaints. It seeks to anticipate and enlighten the readers on how a panel will decide, should it be confronted with a pending UDRP complaint. Applying analogously domestic doctrines in procedure and arbitration, this Article discusses how a cybercrime court might treat the pendency of a UDRP complaint. The Article concludes that there are still significant procedural matters that should be clarified in the prosecution of cybercrime cases, as well as in defending an assertion of a legitimate claim over domain name registration and use.

Suggested Citation

Alberto, Julianne and Pelongco, Jose Ryan, Making Sense of the Cybercrime Courts’ Jurisdiction Over Cybersquatting Cases in Light of the Concurrent Jurisdiction of World Intellectual Property Organization Panels Pursuant to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy ( 2020). Ateneo Law Journal vol. 64:983 2020, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4502014

Julianne Alberto

University of Michigan at Ann Arbor ( email )

Jose Ryan Pelongco (Contact Author)

Ateneo de Manila University ( email )

Katipunan Ave
Quezon City, Manila 1108
Philippines

Kyushu University - Graduate School of Law ( email )

6-19-1 Hakozaki,
Fukuoka
Japan

Ateneo de Manila University - Ateneo Law School ( email )

#20 Rockwell Drive, Rockwell Center
MAKATI CITY, 1200
Philippines

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
31
Abstract Views
167
PlumX Metrics