Legal Nature of UDRP Arbitration Centers

Taking into account a number of procedural and legal consequences determined both by the fact of the conclusion of an arbitration clause and by the fact that an arbitral award was made, the author raises a question of possibility to qualify the consideration of domain disputes considered by arbitration centers under the UDRP procedure as an arbitration proceeding. Along with the characteristics of dispute resolution under the UDRP that are obviously incompatible with arbitration proceedings (the absence of an arbitration agreement between the disputing parties, the inconclusiveness of the decision made, the lack of confidentiality, etc.), the author singles out a non-jurisdictional form of protection as a key factor not in favor of the general courts and centers considering disputes under the UDRP. Based on the analysis of Russian and foreign doctrine and judicial practice, the paper considers the question of the expediency of legitimizing the procedural and substantive provisions of the UDRP Policy and Rules in the Russian legal system, and also attempts to determine the legal nature of dispute resolution under the UDRP procedure.

1. Alekseev S. S. Gosudarstvo i pravo. Nachal’nyj kurs. — M. : Yurist, 1994. — 192 s.

2. Anurov V. N. Konflikt yurisdikcij pri osparivanii arbitrazhnogo soglasheniya. — M. : Infotropik Media, 2013. — 196 s.

3. Babkin S. A. Intellektual’naya sobstvennost’ v global’noj komp’yuternoj seti «Internet»: problemy grazhdansko-pravovogo regulirovaniya v Rossii i SShA: sravnitel’no-pravovoj analiz : dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk. — M., 2004. — 210 s.

4. Benedskaya O. A. K voprosu o pravovoj prirode resheniya tretejskogo suda // Rossijskij yuridicheskij zhurnal. — 2019. — № 1. — S. 96—102.

5. Get’man-Pavlova I. V., Kasatkina A. S., Filatova M. A. Mezhdunarodnyj grazhdanskij process : uchebnik dlya bakalavriata i magistratury / pod obshch. red. I. V. Get’man-Pavlovoj. — M. : Yurajt, 2017. — 271 s.

6. Danilenkov A. V. Internet-pravo. — M. : Yusticinform, 2014. — 232 s.

7. Zhilin G. A. Pravosudie po grazhdanskim delam: aktual’nye voprosy. — M. : Prospekt, 2010. — 576 s.

8. Ivut’ N. I. Principy mezhdunarodnogo grazhdanskogo processa: ponyatie i sushchnost’ // Pravo.by. — 2015. — № 6 (38). — S. 121—125.

9. Intellektual’naya sobstvennost’ v sovremennom mire : monografiya / pod red. I. A. Blizneca. — M. : Prospekt, 2018. — 672 s.

10. Inshakova A. O., Tymchuk Yu. A. Cifrovye tekhnologii al’ternativnyh metodov razresheniya sporov: zarubezhnaya praktika i perspektivy primeneniya v Rossii // Pravo i upravlenie. XXI vek. — 2018. — № 1 (46). — S. 23—31.

11. Korolev D. Yu., Naumov V. B. Processual’nyj status UDRP v Rossii: vozmozhnosti i paradoksy // Patenty i licenzii. — 2003. — № 4. — S. 2—8.

12. Mezhdunarodnyj kommercheskij arbitrazh : uchebnik / pod nauch. red. O. Yu. Skvorcova, M. Yu. Savranskogo, G. V. Sevast’yanova. — Izd. 2-e, pererab. i dop. — M. : Statut, 2018. — 965 s.

13. Neznamov A. V. Osobennosti kompetencii po rassmotreniyu internet-sporov / nauch. red. V. V. Yarkov. — M. : Infotropik Media, 2011. — 254 s.

14. Novoselova L. A., Mihajlov S. V. O pravovom statuse dokumentov, reguliruyushchih registraciyu domennyh imen i sporov po nim // Zakon. — 2013. — № 11. — S. 99—105.

15. Osipov Yu. K. Podvedomstvennost’ yuridicheskih del : uchebnoe posobie. — Sverdlovsk, 1973. — 124 s.

16. Rozhkova M. A. K voprosu o soderzhanii ponyatij «kompetentnyj sud» i «podvedomstvennost’ dela» // Zhurnal rossijskogo prava. — 2006. — № 1 (109). — S. 19—29.

17. Rozhkova M. A., Afanas’ev D. V. Domennye spory: izbrannye aspekty // Pravo v sfere Interneta : sbornik statej / ruk. avt. kol. i otv. red. d. yu. n. M. A. Rozhkova. — M. : Statut, 2018. — S. 224—245.

18. Ruje N. Spory o domennyh imenah: vybor mezhdu chastnymi procedurami (UDRP i prochimi) i razbiratel’stvom v gosudarstvennom sude // Pravo v sfere Interneta : sbornik statej / otv. red. M. A. Rozhkova. — M., 2018. — S. 495—502.

19. Savel’ev A. I. Elektronnaya kommerciya v Rossii i za rubezhom: pravovoe regulirovanie. — M. : Statut, 2014. — 543 s.

20. Saenko A. V. Principy mezhdunarodnogo grazhdanskogo processa : avtoref. dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk. — M., 2013. — 27 s.

21. Skvorcov O. Yu. Tretejskoe razbiratel’stvo predprinimatel’skih sporov v Rossii: problemy, tendencii, perspektivy. — M. : Volters Kluver, 2005. — 704 s.

22. Yakushev M. V., Rozhkova M. A., Afanas’ev D. V. O pravovoj prirode al’ternativnyh razbiratel’stv domennyh sporov // Vestnik mezhdunarodnogo kommercheskogo arbitrazha. — 2017. — № 1 (14). — S. 173—179.

23. Aplin T. Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Digital Technologies. — Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020. — 608 r.

24. Arnot J. A. Navigating Cybersquatting Enforcement in the Expanding Internet // The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. — 2014. — Vol. 13. — № 2. — Pp. 321—340.

25. Biukovic L. International Commercial Arbitration in Cyberspace: Recent Developments // Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business. — 2002. — Vol. 22. — № 3. — Pp. 319—352.

26. Emerson C. D. Wasting Time in Cyberspace: The UDRP’ s Inefficient Approach toward Arbitrating Internet Domain Name Disputes // University of Baltimore Law Abstract. — 2004. — Vol. 34. — № 2. — Pp. 159—197.

27. Froomkin A. M. ICANN’s «Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy» — Causes and (Partial) Cures // Brooklyn Law Abstract. — 2002. — Vol. 67. — № 3. — Pp. 605—718.

28. McJohn S. Top Tens of 2013: Patent, Trademark, Copyright, and Trade Secret Cases // Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property. — 2014. — Vol. 12. — № 3. — Pp. 177—214.

29. Mueller M. Rough justice A statistical assessment of ICANN’s Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy // Information society. — 2001. — Vol. 17. — Pp. 151—163.