Search Results

The rapid expansion of electronic commerce (e-commerce) is impacting economic activities both at the national and international levels. E-commerce is still in its infancy, but it is often identified as one of the main drivers of the economic and social changes associated with the ‘networking revolution’. There is broad consensus that the establishment of the regulatory environment under which economic agents practice e-commerce plays an important role in shaping the impact and depth of these transformations. Most countries have by now introduced domestic legislation devoted to foster an adequate ‘digital’ environment with special emphasis on the rules and regulations relevant for e-commerce. At the international level, debate is also ongoing not only under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO), but also in many other forums (e.g., OECD, WIPO, ICANN, ITU). This chapter reviews the case for multilateral rules and the challenges faced by regulators around the world to cope with the extra-territorial implications of e-commerce. It first discusses the economic dimensions of e-commerce and the most relevant regulatory issues for its expansion, and thereafter analyzes the case for multilateral rules concerning e-commerce, focusing on ongoing discussions on trade-related issues in the WTO.

Chapter Twelve concerns restrictions on the publication of sexual and violent content, which are often highly restrictive where democratic arguments for free speech are not directly engaged. This Chapter examines these restrictions within EU law, which accepts that there is no common European standard in matters of public morals and that member states enjoy considerable discretion in this area, where human dignity and the rights of children are at issue. EU law also contains prescriptive rules concerning the protection of children and the suppression of child pornography. As the Chapter discusses, European human rights law underpins these developments, containing a similar margin of discretion and equivalent prescriptive rules. In international law, national autonomy in this area is wider, although WTO appellate cases have challenged the necessity of measures grounded on the public morals exceptions to the GATT and GATS. The United Nations provides international standards for the protection of children.

The characteristic feature of this dispute mechanism is that it gives trademark holders the opportunity to file a complaint directly against a registry operator responsible for running a gTLD (as opposed to a domain name registrant or registrar) for its improper conduct either at the top or second level.

This chapter describes the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) concept, process, and politics, and also explains why this concept is considered to be at a crucial and critical point in international communication history. It continues with a detailed analysis of the liberalization of the Internet, the origin of the WSIS, and the counter-revolution with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and also explores the Working Group on the Internet Governance (WGIG) concept and its political debate with the WSIS. The chapter furthermore debates several other topics such as the .xxx Veto arguments, the Tunis Agenda, and other political consequences, stating, in conclusion, that the WSIS strongly compelled state governments and international organizations to look into Internet governance and policy issues.

This chapter traces the history of U.S. information policy, focusing on four illustrative case studies that reveal a consistent pattern of utilizing a narrative of the freedom of information to bypass state boundaries and sovereignty. After discussing the connection between information and commerce, the chapter considers each case in more detail. The first case examines the U.S. challenge to British communications hegemony in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; the second explores the view that U.S.-backed ventures to build up underdeveloped countries constituted a policy of creating new markets for U.S. products; the third focuses on the use of international structures such as the International Telecommunications Union and UNESCO by developing countries to assert grievances arising from a misbalance of power in world communication structures; and the fourth case deals with the formation of ICANN as a U.S. policy. This chapter links the debates over international communication to geopolitics, highlighting the various ways international institutions and partnerships are leveraged, selectively, to support American foreign policy goals.

This chapter examines how multistakeholder institutions reflect dominant political and/or economic interests, arguing that the discourse of multistakeholderism is used to legitimize arrangements benefiting powerful, established actors like the United States and its robust Information and Communication Technology (ICT) sector. After a brief discussion of what is actually at stake in debates over internet governance, the chapter provides an overview of the origins and theory of the multistakeholder process. It then considers how seemingly participatory, inclusive, and consensus-driven decision-making structures provide legitimacy for existing political and economic interests by using three case studies: ICANN, the Internet Society (ISOC), and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It shows that, by incentivizing inclusion and consensus, multistakeholder processes risk stifling legitimate dissent from external actors who have no interest in lending legitimacy to the facade of an apolitical negotiation.

The chapter presents the first of two case studies that are aimed at illustrating the complexity and dynamics of contract-based transnational private regulation (TPR). The case study herein concerns the contractual framework for governing the Internet naming and numbering system. In delineating this framework, the chapter examines the role of the central actors involved, with particular focus on the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the US government, other national governments, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), domain registries and registrars. The chapter also provides a useful reference point for subsequent discussion on the utility and legitimacy of TPR in governing a set of globally critical resources.

This chapter traces the challenges to the Internet’s founding values of freedom of information, communication, and innovation back to its first years. The issues of security, privacy, and misinformation raised by the Information and Communications Revolution have roots in early decisions, taken either as conscious choices or as products of the pioneers’ libertarian spirit, and later reinforced by democratic governments’ determination to keep the Internet free of censorship and open to innovation. Despite early hopes that controlling information flows would be technically impossible, measures by authoritarian governments have become more sophisticated and effective, especially in China. At the same time, democracies agree on basic principles but disagree over privacy and data localization. These tensions were resolved pragmatically: an independent NGO operates the Internet, advised by both governments and a freewheeling forum. The spread of Chinese 5G technology is likely to challenge U.S. dominance of Internet operation, governance, and embodied values.

Internet governance (IG) became a global issue after the Snowden revelations that highlighted the fact that there was mass spying by privately owned companies on behalf of the NSA. This chapter deals with the politics of IG, the ambivalent nature of India’s shifting commitments to the multistakeholder model, and the role played by civil society in Internet politics in India against the background of ICANN’s own history and contemporary status. The Indian government’s position on IG is complex given that it has adopted both a statist attitude towards its governance and considered the ITU as a natural governor of the Internet, along with a position that is supportive of multistakeholderism, although this ethic is not reflected in its facilitation of civil society involvements at a local level.

Chapter 3 opens Part II of the book with a focus on e-commerce. E-commerce is the arena in which ODR is most developed and where it has been embraced by public international bodies interested in cross-border transactions. After presenting a fictional scenario, the chapter analyzes some of the new types of disputes that arise in the e-commerce setting—their sources and characteristics. It then analyzes novel dispute resolution mechanisms, focusing on the domain name dispute resolution system administered by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) through the prism of access to digital justice developed in Chapter 2 and the dispute systems design concepts introduced in Chapter 1. In addition, the growing role dispute prevention activities occupy in the online arena is explored through a discussion of sharing economy platforms, uncovering the positive potential of such activities, alongside the broad basis for abuse.

Disputes arising under trademark and competition law owing to the registration and use of domain names have become commonplace in German courts. Following a phase of widespread legal uncertainty, in the meantime the core problems of domain names under trademark and competition law have been resolved. There are more than 50 judgments from the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) and a multitude of decisions from the courts of the lower instances in disputes concerning domain names.

The current trademark law is the Trademarks Ordinance (TMO, Chapter 559) and the Trademarks Rules (Chapter 559A). The TMO is modeled on the trademark laws of the countries of the European Union, in particular, the United Kingdom Trademarks Act 1994. The relevant United Kingdom cases as well as those of other common law countries (such as Australia, New Zealand), although not binding, provide guidance on the interpretation of Hong Kong trademark law. The TMO grants exclusive rights to the owners of registered trademarks.

The Trade Marks Act 1999 came into force on 15 September 2003. Complying with most of the requirements of the Trade-Related Aspects of the Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, the new Act eliminates many of the difficulties faced by trademark owners and practitioners under the earlier Trade and Merchandise Marks Act (of 1958).

In Israel, trademarks are governed by both legislation and by common law. Rights are created by the first to file or use within the jurisdiction. Registration is not mandatory to establish rights in a trademark, and there are no compulsory registration provisions. However, there are substantial benefits to seeking trademark registration in Israel. The Israel Trade Marks Ordinance (New Version) 5732-1972 (Trademarks Ordinance) governs the rules under which trademarks are registered. Proof of use is not required to obtain registration in Israel, although there are provisions for cancellation of trademarks for non-use.

Two types of trademarks are protected under Japanese law: (1) trade and service marks, protected by the Trademark Act and the Unfair Competition Prevention Act¹ (hereinafter the UCA); and (2) business names, protected by the Companies Act, the Commercial Code, and the UCA.

In Portugal, several intellectual property (IP) rights are protected, including both trademarks and logotypes. Personal names, as well as literary and artistic names, company names and names of other legal persons, are also protected as exclusive rights which do not strictly qualify as IP rights under Portuguese law.