WIPO Dispute Decisions Contestable In U.S. Courts

Thu Anon Coward writes: "Yahoo is reporting that the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston has said that WIPO domain disputes can be contested in court. A domain name holder may file a civil action suit in U.S. courts. Apparently we can thank the 'Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act,' signed by former President Clinton."

Comments

Why couldn't you?

[autopr0n]

This has always been the case, the UN has no direct legal authority to do anything at all, unless it involves wars between different countries.

WIPO arbitration has always been that, arbitration. Not legally binding. (of course, who knows what kind of contract stuff you implicitly signed on for when you purchased your domain)

The fact that IP owners get to pick the arena for the legal fight is a crock of shit... and in my opinion should cast a lot of doubt on any decision handed down by WIPO, who always vote with only business consideration in mind (the few cases where they have allowed the copyright holder to keep their domain, it was because they felt that the incumbent had a useful business reason for keeping the domain).

The US courts might not be the most fair organizations, but I'd imagine that they'd be a hell of a lot better then WIPO.

Chill Pill

[donutello]

There's a lot of folk on Slashdot who seem to have no clue about how international laws or politics work. Unfortunately that doesn't stop them from posting on here.

Virtually every international treaty is a voluntary agreement. Any country that doesn't like the provisions is free to quit. Don't like the WTO? Well, don't sign it. Don't bitch about other countries benefiting from it, though. Any country that feels a particular agreement is prejudicial to its interests is free to not accept it.

A world micro-government is precisely the wrong thing to do. There is no challenging the authority of such a government. There is nothing to prevent the more influential countries from ganging up to screw the others.

Look at things like the CTBT (Comprehensive (Nuclear) Test Ban Treaty) for example. Countries like India and Pakistan don't think that is fair to them because it allows countries like the US to keep their nukes while forcing them to give up theirs. So what do they do? They refuse to sign it!.

A world micro-government would force them to accept what (in their view) is an iniquitable solution.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the way things work right now. Yes, some countries are able to get more but that's only because they bring more to the table. And this is not about military power - I can't think of a time when a country was bombed because they didn't sign a trade treaty. This is about financial power. "You want access to the US's markets? Well, how much is that worth to you? What are you willing to give up for that access?" The only reason the US has more of a say in these affairs is because the other countries would rather let the US have the bigger say than drop out of the agreement.

Nothing is broken. Move along.