WIPO

Type:	Non-Profit
Founded:	1967
Headquarters:	Geneva
Country:	Switzerland
Employees:	1001-5000
Website:	wipo.int
Facebook:	WIPO Facebook
LinkedIn:	WIPO LinkedIn
Key People
Francis Gurry, Director General

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) it is a specialized United Nations agency tasked with the development of accessible and harmonious intellectual property (IP) systems. It aims at rewarding creativity while stimulating unique economic developments, with a mind towards public interests.

History

The WIPO Convention was signed in 1967, although the organization did not begin functioning until 1970. It was established by WIPO Convention with reference from its Member States. The main objective of WIPO was to enhance the protection of IP around the globe. This is carried out by cooperation amongst all member states as well as other international organizations. In 1974, it became a part of the United Nations.In 1996, it entered into an agreement with the World Trade Organisation, thereby expanding its trade role.

Organization

The Secretariat of WIPO is based in Geneva. The Secretariat's duty is to implement decisions made by the WIPO, to administer the global IP registration systems, and to counsel WIPO members. It is also responsible for executing the plans and programs that help in achievement of WIPO’s aims. Activities and transactions of the organization are enacted by the Director together with the Member States.

Member States

WIPO currently contains 184 member states. This constitutes more than 90% of the countries around the world. Every Member State has a Secretariat who is responsible for conducting and organizing meetings and events. These Secretariats are often celebrated specialists in IP, law, economics, public policies, IT and administration.

WIPO works in collaboration with its members. The strategic route of WIPO is determined by the Member States. Meetings are carried out in committees, general assemblies, and working groups. These three wings constitute the decision making bodies of WIPO.

How to become a member state of WIPO?

A state can become a member of the WIPO by depositing an instrument of accession or ratification with the WIPO’s Director General.A state can get membership only

• If It is a member of the Berne Union for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
• Or if it is a member of the Paris Union for the Protection of Industrial Property
• Or if it is a member of the United Nations
• Or if it is a member of any of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations
• Or if it is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency
• Or if it is a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice
• Or if the WIPO General Assembly sends an invitation to that state to become a member state of this organization.

Stakeholders

This organization works with various stakeholders to achieve its goals. These stakeholders include non-governmental organizations, inter-governmental organizations and representatives of civil society. It also includes representatives of industry groups. The meetings are attended by more than 250 NGOs and IGOs.

WIPO Program and Budget Plan

WIPO has to present a program and budget plan every two years, containing performance measures, particulars of the objectives and budget planning for all the events of the organization. The document is sent to the Member States for their approval. The organization is self-financing, with a majority of funds being spent on organization events. The wings of Internal Audit and Oversight Division together with an Audit Committee and External Auditor help in proper functions of WIPO.

Correspondence between WIPO and ICANN

Related to new gTLD program of ICANN

• May 13th, 2011—WIPO’s observations on Discussion Draft of ICANN’s new gTLD program

The Arbitration and Mediation Center of WIPO helps to administer and design the balanced IP systems throughout the world. The Center is a main resource center working with the UDRP i.e. Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. There was no dearth of ideas to keep a balance between different positions and many of them have been included in the present format of Rights Protection Mechanisms of ICANN. Some observations of April 2011 Discussion Draft of the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook” are explained below:

Trademark Clearinghouse: ICANN should view the expansion of fee based Clearinghouse with caution and should keep in mind the national and International IP norms while determining identifiers. Clarification must be made on outstanding matters like measures for fee apportionment, relation to determinations of trademark office, treatment of word and design marks and non-Latin scripts.

Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS): The URS format has demands in many fields. Some modalities like timelines have been tweaked, but there are many serious problems that are still unaddressed. To safeguard the URS format, ICANN must make sensible decisions and come up with a policy.

Post Delegation Dispute Resolution (PDDRP): WIPO’s suggestion of establishing a Post Delegation Dispute Resolution has been taken up by ICANN. However, the gains that are made as a result of registration activities breach t3rd party rights. Thus, there should be a positive collaboration with a long term view.

• 9th March, 2011--Observation of Arbitration and Mediation Center of WIPO on scorecard of GAC on protection of rights and ICANN Board’s corresponding questions

Trademark Clearinghouse: Expanding the Clearinghouse data scopes will make it difficult for ICANN to ensure proper safeguarding of clearinghouse operators and data. Data sources are very easily available and any expansion must avoid the loss of individuals and SMEs, who are not expected to use clearinghouse data or who are not aware of it. Increasing the scope of Clearinghouse date will lead to costly complexities.

Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS): The URS was always for prima facie, so operating as a substitute of the UDRP should be avoided. ICANN must clarify what should be the certification criteria to ground the examiners in trademark practice and law. ICANN must also clarify whether an examiner should be internal or external with respect to the provider. Track record of the providers in relevant jurisprudence training must be considered.

Post Delegation Dispute Resolution (PDDRP): The resolve of ICANN to limit PDDRP’s scope is a big task for this sort of RPM. The PDDRP provides a means to owners of the trademark so that they address the breach without much difficulty. They don’t need to go through costly, time consuming and repetitive mechanisms.

• 2nd December, 2010--WIPO’s comments of Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook of ICANN

The Center noted that many observer organizations' representatives and delegations have expressed that intellectual property rights in DNS (Domain Name System) need protection, especially with respect to the DNS expansion which has been planned by the ICANN. Various delegations have raised this concern and they feel that ICANN should review and amend the UDRP i.e. Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy initiated by WIPO. The chair said that the WIPO Secretariat’s contribution in the field of Internet Domain Names was endorsed and supported by the Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT). The chair also requested to submit a report on various developments at SCT’s next session.

• 21st July, 2010-- WIPO’s observation about ICANN’s Brussels meeting

It seemed that few participants were self-appointed and there were conflicts of interests. Such things arise at the cost of relevant expertise favoring subjective or incidental input. WIPO believes that for a stable and long term DNS framework, an informed and open dialogue is necessary; this must be supported by all the stakeholders. The dialogue’s credibility will rely on broader vision, institutional integrity and substantive relevance of the participants, no matter if they are a part of ICANN’s formal structures or not. The expansion plan of the DNS framework provides a great opportunity to enhance the responsibility of partnerships. WIPO will always be there to contribute for the expansion of DNS framework.

Some other cross over communications are:

• 16th June, 2010--WIPO’s observations on 4th Version of ICANN’s Draft Applicant Guidebook
• 30th March, 2010—revision of ICANN’s Trademark Clearinghouse in February 2010
• 30th March, 2010-- ICANN Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) Procedure of February 2010
• 26th March, 2010—Revision of ICANN’s Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (UDDRP)
• 26th January, 2010-- STI Report on Trademark Protection in New gTLDs approved by GNSO
• 20th November, 2009-- Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure proposed by ICANN-staff
• 18th June, 2009— Final Report of ICANN’s Implementation Recommendation Team
• 10th May, 2009—Draft Report of ICANN’s Implementation Recommendation Team

Related to UDRP

• 15th July, 2011-- WIPO’s Observation on ICANN Staff “Preliminary Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP”

1. ICANN Board has assured of Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) stability.
2. The focus of registration abuse review should be on cybersquatting instead of UDRP.
3. In case of new processes make sure that they are driven by some experts and focused in right direction.
4. Distinctions between processes/policies are complex, the issues which are listed does not fall within the [UDRP]]’s scope and are subject to determination of panel.
5. The Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) should perform its job freely.

• 6th May, 2011--WIPO’s observations to ICANN on Policy Staff/GNSO Council “Current State of the UDRP Webinar”

1. Domain Name Registrants, Trademark owners and Registration authorities have been offered effective solutions by the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).
2. The UDRP has been a fair and flexible resolution system and has accommodated various evolving practices and norms.
3. As ICANN is thinking of expanding the DNS framework and there are some RPMs, which are in their testing phase; the time is wrong to modify the UDRP.
4. The modification process of ICANN would end up in diluting and overburdening the UDRP.
5. ICANN must address the basic questions about cybersquatting’s DNS and business beneficiaries before looking into mechanism for addressing this practice.

• 26th March, 2010-- WIPO’s observations on “Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Initial Report”

1. The UDRP has been included in the initial report of RAP WG, but the idea behind it is not clear, especially against new gTLD program of ICANN.
2. It seems that new gTLD program of ICANN has already addressed the Cybersquatting Recommendation.
3. ICANN must focus more on mechanisms rather then amending the UDRP. This will yield better results and will help in the long run.
4. UDRP’s integrity depends more on providers chosen by ICANN.

• 11th December, 2009—Related to Registrar Nameview
• 17th September, 2009—On conclusion drawn by ICANN on eUDRP proposal of WIPO
• 9th April, 2010—Related to Registrar Lead Network
• 30th December, 2008—On eUDRP initiative of WIPO
• 27th November, 2008—Draft Advisory concerning Best Practices by Registrars

Reversed UDRP Cases

On January 10, 2012, Senior District Judge Royal Ferguson of the Northern District of Texas reversed the decisions of the WIPO under the UDRP on all cybesquatting cases as early as 2010. Judge Ferguson ordered the domain names publicstorge.com, pulicstorage.com, puplicstorage.com and aplle.com; which had been transferred to the companies Public Storage and Apple respectively shall be transferred back to the original registrants. He also ordered ICANN and the Australian based registrar Fabulous.com to disregard the default transer ruling of the UDRP for all the remaining non-transferred domain names and to inform the court within two days that the court order has been fulfilled.

External links

• WIPO

World Intellectual Property Organization

Governmental Advisory Committee. Considers and provides advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN's policies and various laws and international agreements or where they may affect public policy issues (ICANN Bylaws).

Generic Names Supporting Organization. Develops and recommends to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities set forth in the Bylaws (ICANN Bylaws).

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy