CyberSquatting continues to be a problem - Dispute resolution system
(Page 3 of 4 )

It’s not just the money, either. Sure, cost effectiveness is an important factor, but the process itself is very predictable and swift. Most complainants who choose to use the UDRP rather than traditional litigation consider it to be a far quicker and cheaper way of protecting their trademark rights against cybersquatting.

With something as global as the internet, it’s important to have a process whose validity and jurisdiction is recognized throughout the world. Fortunately, WIPO’s Arbitration Center is set up to handle cases in different languages, allowing parties from all over the world to file complaints under the UDRP. In addition to the countries mentioned in the previous section, cases were filed in 2005 by complainants from Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Brazil, China, Honduras, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, Qatar, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela.

It’s worth keeping in mind that WIPO’s Arbitration Center can’t force any financial penalties onto anyone. When it decides in favor of the complainant, it usually forces the cybersquatter to hand over the disputed domain.

page 1 2 3 4