<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[bc-gnso] RE: ACDR conference call follow up
- To: Mahmoud Lattouf <mlattouf@xxxxxxxx>, "bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: ACDR conference call follow up
- From: Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 02:47:33 +0000
Thanks Mahmoud. Really appreciate the response.
I like the fact that parties to a proceeding can challenge a panelist.
I do have a bit of concern still over the statement "ACDR vision is to select
panelists from different nationalities and with different approaches to IP and
other related fields." How does "different approaches to IP and related fields"
square with the need for uniform application of the UDRP by all panelists
across all arbitration providers?
Thanks in advance for your response.
Best, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
________________________________
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Mahmoud
Lattouf [mlattouf@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 7:53 AM
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Benedetta Rossi
Subject: [bc-gnso] ACDR conference call follow up
Dear All,
This is to follow up on our conference call last week regarding the ACDR
application to become a UDRP provider. Here is our answers to questions, 5, 6,
and 7 mentioned during the conference call:
5. How do you ensure that pro-Complainant bias is not present when you
accredit panelists who also serve as active TM attorneys?
ACDR policy is clear here, panelists are required to sign declarations,
moreover, before the appointment of a panelist, the elected panel will be
requested to sign and return to the Center a Declaration of Independence and
Impartiality using the specially designed form specifically designed for that
purpose which will be available on the Center’s website. In addition, a party
to the administrative proceedings may challenge the appointment of a panelist
via filing a written request or by submitting an electronic request through the
website stating the circumstances and reasons for the challenge within five
calendar days from the date of notice of the selection. The Center will
determine whether adequate circumstances exist for disqualification. (Please
see Supplemental Rules in Annex 3 of this Proposal) I think we are the only
center who covered this point clearly before operation; other service providers
fixed such precedents after operation. This is why we believe that we are
benefiting from their experience.
6. Are you making a concerted effort to recruit panelists from academia and
from retired judges, who would not be as likely to have as strong a
pro-complainant bias as active TM attorneys?
ACDR vision is to select panelists from different nationalities and with
different approaches to IP and other related fields. We already provided full
details regarding the experience and selection, please refer to point (2\a) of
the proposal and annex 2 (screening requirements). We will be appointing more
panelists from academia and retired judges as well.
7. How do you handle unsolicited supplemental filings from Complainants? How
do you ensure that Respondents are not put to an undue burden of responding to
Supplemental Filings from Complainants if those Supplemental Filings are not
considered by the Panelists? And conversely, if Supplemental Filings are
considered by panelists how do you ensure that Respondents are provided
adequate time to prepare and file a Supplemental Response so that the
Supplemental Response will also be considered by the Panel before they issue
their decision.
Extensions are allowed according to ACDR, please refer to point No. 9 of the SR:
Extensions :
(a) The Center and, after its appointment, the panel, shall in its sole
discretion decide on any request from a party or on its own motion, prior to
the expiration of the concerned period(s), to extend, in the presence of
exceptional circumstances, the period(s) of time provided for under these
supplemental rules.
(b) A request to the Center for an extension by a party must state the
circumstances warranting the request, accompanied by an extension fee of $100.
(c) If an extension is granted, it shall be for a period not exceeding ten
(10) additional calendar days.
I hope this answer your concerns. Should you require further information,
please let me know.
Thank you,
Best Regards,
Mahmoud A. Lattouf
Executive Director – AGIP Offices
Abu-Ghazaleh Intellectual Property
Member of Talal Abu-Ghazaleh Organization
Tel.: +962 6 5100 900 ext. 1623
Fax: +962 6 5100 901
Email: mlattouf@xxxxxxxx<mailto:mlattouf@xxxxxxxx>
URL: www.agip.com<http://www.agip.com/>
TAGORG.com The Global organization for professional, business, intellectual
property, education, culture and capacity building services.
We work hard to stay first
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6191 - Release Date: 03/20/13
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|