1

Alternative Dispute Resolution is the use of methods to settle and resolve disputes outside of court
instead of resorting to litigation.

The advantages of using ADR are:

Neutrality:

Enforceability:

Choice: Parties will have flexibility to determine whether a dispute will be arbitrated, which rules to
apply to their dispute, which arbitrators to pick and the methods for picking them, their nationalities
and qualifications and the timing of the arbitration.

Cost-effectiveness: Using ADR is more cost-effective than litigation and an agreement on many
procedural issues cab saves time and legal fees.

Confidentiality: If disputes resort to court litigation, it will be open to the public and media. By using
ADR, it prevents disputes from going public and the identity of the parties, the nature of the dispute
and the materials used within the dispute will remain confidential.

The 4 ADR procedures that will be discussed are:

Mediation: This procedure contains a structured negotiation in which a 3rd party (the mediator) is
appointed by both parties and facilitates communication between the parties and assists them in
accomplishing a binding settlement. Once the settlement is reached, the mediator will invite both
parties to make their agreement binding as a matter of contract.

Conciliation: A conciliator will have more of an active role than a mediator as he/she will inform both
parties of his/her opinion on the issues in dispute but both parties can choose to either ignore of
accept the opinions of the conciliator.

Adjudication: Involves the determination of an issue by an adjudicator(s) appointed by both parties,

where the person is an expert in the subject matter. The determination may be binding or non-
binding subject to the parties agreeing before the session.

Med-Arb: A combined process containing mediation and arbitration. It starts with mediation where
if no settlement is reached by a certain time, the process becomes an arbitration. Whoever was
appointed as a mediator will assume the role of arbitrator and then give his/her formal decision
which is binding on both parties.

2a

Mr Carl Walcott can proceed with a dispute resolution complaint to ICANN as Carl Walcott is
commonly known by the domain name even if he doesn’t have any rights to the domain name and
wants to make a legitimate non-commercial and/or fair use of the domain name without misleading
consumers. So, Carl Walcott can make a complaint and is able to meet the requirements since he has
no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, the domain name is registered by
someone else and is being used in bad faith and the domain name is identical in which the
complainant has rights towards the domain name.
Making a complaint to Nominet (UK) will be different because there is a neutral body helping both
parties find a solution in this matter and the complainant is required to prove to the Expert that both
proceedings are present on the balance of probabilities.

3ia

I agree with the decision because:

 The Complainant is the registered owner of the trademark “HILTON”

 The website was used to direct Internet users instead, diverting them from reaching the
complainants’ sites.
 The Complainant has not licenses nor authorised the Respondent to use the trademarks.
 Led Internet users to believe that the Respondents’ website was in some way sponsored,
endorsed or associated with the Complainant and was used in bad faith.

3ib

I have a mixed feeling towards this because:

 I believe that the Respondent was using the name that has confused Internet users to
believe that the domain name is registered to the complainant.
 The Domain Name is identical or similar to the complainant. However, the domain name is
used as a method to expand the Respondent’s business.
 Also, the complainant’s website was still under construction and complained that there
wouldn’t be any conflict between both parties as they were situated in different areas.
Furthermore, the complainant’s registration took place after the Respondent’s registration
and started using the domain name.

3ii

Julia Roberts: The panel found that the domain was identical to Julia Roberts’ name and was well
known that it didn’t need a trademark registration to protect its use and the respondent
demonstrated a lack of a legitimate interest in the name saying, “she would own it by now”. This
shown that the domain name was made in bad faith and was transferred to Julia Roberts.

Madonna: Despite having interesting arguments against Madonna, the respondent did not use the
domain name in good faith as he was diverting traffic to the website for viewers who are seeking
information about the artist. The website also contained explicit photographs and other
objectionable material that can possibly tarnish her reputation and image. The respondent wasn’t
even a fan of Madonna and used her name of this advantage. Therefore, the domain name was
transferred to Madonna.

Bruce Springsteen: The owner of the domain name made the website to provide information about
the artist, which is a legitimate right or interest, there was nothing classified as misleading on the
website towards Internet users, the owner did not prevent the artist from using the domain name
and made no attempts to sell the domain name. Therefore, Bruce Springsteen’s complaint was
dismissed.

Tom Cruise: The actor made a complaint to the person that also owned the domain name of Bruce
Springsteen. This case was filed six years after Bruce’s case. The reason Tom Cruise won this case
and received the domain name is because the website contained a link to merchandise from
amazon.com, which became an intention to make profit off of Tom Cruise’s name.
Dan Marino: The NFL quarterback filed a complaint against the registrant but failed to file a response
to the complainant. The domain name was linked to another site owned by the registrant, which
provided a variety of sports, entertainment, trivia and other programs for commercial gain, which
result in the domain name being transferred to Mr Marino due to bad faith from the registrant.

3iii

N/A

References:

https://albrightstoddard.com/advantages-disadvantages-adr/

http://media.law.uark.edu/arklawnotes/2014/05/28/a-fun-primer-on-wipo-icann-and-the-uniform-
domain-name-dispute-resolution-policy/