Jump to main contents

Working for the better Internet Infrastructure.
TEXT SIZE : A A A
Print Preview

Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC)
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy Task Force (DRP-TF)
Date posted: July 19, 2000

Task Force Report on the Final Documents of the "JP Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy" Japanese Page

Contents

1. Summary
2. Main topics of discussions made after the first draft documents
3. Public comments and replies by the DRP-TF
4. Relations among the Policy, the Rules of Procedure, and the Registration Rules
5. Approval of dispute resolution service providers
6. Necessity of substantive law
Appendix 1: Task Force Member List
Appendix 2: Reference URLs

1. Summary

With the rapid increase in the Internet population and recent expansion of electronic commerce, various conflicts and disputes over domain names and trademarks are occurring. International discussions on how to resolve such disputes have been continuing for the past several years. In July 1998, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) initiated an all-inclusive Internet domain name process. After soliciting public comments three times and holding public hearings in locations throughout the world, WIPO submitted its final report to the ICANN Board of Directors in April 1999.

Based on this report, ICANN formulated its "Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy" in October 1999 with a view to resolving disputes over .com, .net and .org (hereafter, "gTLDs"). ICANN-accredited registrars dealing with these gTLDs adopted this Policy on December 1, 1999 (some registrars including Network Solutions adopted the Policy on January 1, 2000). Also on December 1, 1999, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center started operating as the first dispute resolution service provider approved by ICANN. As of today, four organizations have been approved by ICANN as dispute resolution service providers.

Although there have been few such disputes in Japan, some problematic cases have been reported, thus necessitating a system of resolving them. Japan has so far witnessed only a few domain name disputes due largely to JPNIC's rule of assigning one domain name per organization, and to its ban on domain name transfers. Although there have been demands to relax or abolish these rules in view of the rapid spread of the Internet in Japan, the rules effectively discourage the registration and use of domain names in bad faith. Therefore, any discussion of relaxation and abolition must be predicated on the enforcement of the newly established JP Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.

JPNIC set up the Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy Task Force (hereafter, "DRP-TF") on December 15, 1999. The DRP-TF has been studying issues concerning the establishment of the JP Domain Name Dispute Resolute Policy (the "Policy") that stipulates the resolution of disputes over JP domain names and the Rules for JP Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules of Procedure") that stipulate administrative proceedings for dispute resolution.

The DRP-TF submitted the first draft documents to the JPNIC Steering Committee on April 26, 2000. The Steering Committee accepted and approved the documents, then published it on May 8 to commence the process of soliciting public comments. The first draft documents of the JP Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy is available at:

http://www.nic.ad.jp/ja/drp/index.html

The deadline for public comments was June 11. Based upon the comments contributed by then, the DRP-TF continued to make further studies. This report summarizes those public comments and the topics of discussions held by the DRP-TF.

On July 10, the DRP-TF summarized the discussion results in its final documents and submitted them to the JPNIC Steering Committee. The documents were accepted by the Steering Committee and approved by the Board of Directors.

The policy established this time aims to resolve disputes by quickly canceling or transferring domain names obviously registered or used in bad faith when complaints are made by rightful complainants. Examples of domain name registration and use in bad faith include: acquiring a domain name reflecting a trademark for the purpose of reselling it to the trademark owner at a high price; establishing a Web site using a domain name identical or similar to a trademark owned by another party for the purpose of creating misunderstanding and confusion among Internet users. Refer to Paragraph 4 (b) of the Policy for the precise descriptions of the evidence of registration and use in bad faith.

An administrative proceeding for dispute resolution is commenced when a third party makes a complaint. An entity registering a JP domain name with JPNIC (all JP domain name registrants are subject to the Policy upon its enforcement) must always submit to an administrative proceeding (i.e., participate in the proceeding and follow a decision made) conducted before a dispute resolution service provider. This is one of the main characteristics of the administrative proceeding.

Dispute resolution service providers approved by JPNIC will conduct administrative proceedings for dispute resolution. The administrative proceedings will be faster (a decision will be reached within 55 days at most) and cheaper (fees will be decided by the dispute resolution service provider) than court proceedings. Moreover, parties concerned are not required to present themselves at the dispute resolution service provider but simply must submit documents on the basis of which the proceedings will be carried out. Any party dissatisfied with a decision made by the service provider is allowed to file a suit in a court. (This differs from arbitration, which is a process of resolving a dispute outside the judicial system. Once a decision is reached by arbitration, the parties concerned are not allowed to commence a lawsuit even if they are dissatisfied with the decision.)

The practical criteria of the dispute resolution policy and its administrative proceedings comply with the "Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy" and the "Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy" approved and adopted by ICANN in October 1999. During the process of drafting the policy, the DRP-TF localized the above ICANN Policy and Rules, giving full consideration to Japanese judicial and arbitration systems. Accordingly, while the dispute resolution policy established by JPNIC consists of voluntary rules to be followed by JPNIC and all JP domain name registrants, its criteria and implementation are designed to keep pace with international trends.

The Policy and Rules of Procedure established by JPNIC will be published and enforced according to the following schedule:

  • July 19, 2000: publication of the JP Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
  • October 19, 2000: enforcement of the JP Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

2. Major topics of discussions after the first draft documents

After submitting the first draft documents, the DRP-TF discussed the following main topics:

(1) Should "trademarks or service marks" be the only ground for complaint?

In the first draft documents, the grounds for complaint were limited to "trademarks or service marks". The public was then invited to comment on the protection of unregistered trademarks or service marks (to what extent should they be protected), registered trademarks or service marks not used for a long time, foreign trademarks or service marks, and so forth.

Several people commented that not only "trademarks or service marks" but also "business identifiers" protected by the Unfair Competition Prevention Law should be accepted as grounds for complaints. When business identifiers are excluded, the owners of these identifiers will not be able to bring complaints about domain names registered and used in bad faith for the reason that their complaints are not about trademarks or service marks. This could defeat the purpose of the Policy. Similarly, some people commented that protection should be extended to persons' names.

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy adopted by ICANN stipulates that complaints can be brought regarding "trademarks or service marks". In disputes over the registration of domain names identical to famous actresses or singers, some decisions requiring domain name transfers were made on the ground of the trademark right in the common law or "passing-off".

Taking the above into consideration, the DRP-TF decided that "any mark such as a trademark or service mark" may constitute grounds for complaint. In other words, the grounds for complaint are slightly more extensive than "trademarks" defined in the Japanese Trademark Law.

Applicable disputes are required to satisfy all three requirements listed below. Initially, the grounds for complaint were restricted to relatively easy-to-identify "trademarks or service marks" so as to shorten administrative proceedings for dispute resolution. Finally, however, the DRP-TF concluded that requirement (i) may be relaxed slightly because it is more important to identify "bad faith" set forth in requirement (iii).

(Paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy)

  1. The registrant's domain name is identical or confusingly similar
    to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has
    rights; and
  2. The registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
  3. The registrant's domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

(2) Are the criteria of registration and use in bad faith legally valid?

The DRP-TF has not changed its view of this issue since the submission of the first draft documents. The DRP-TF would prefer the issue to be eventually resolved by the establishment of substantive law. The necessity of such law is described later in "6. Necessity of substantive law".

(3) Should "mutual jurisdiction" be restricted?

In the final documents, the Rules of Procedure stipulates "mutual jurisdiction" as follows:

(Paragraph 1 of the Rules of Procedure)

  1. "Mutual jurisdiction" means
    1. Tokyo District Court, or
    2. a court jurisdiction at the location of the registrant's address as shown for the registration of the domain name in the Center's database at the time the complaint is submitted to a dispute resolution service provider

Some DRP-TF members think that "mutual jurisdiction" should be restricted to Tokyo District Court and Osaka District Court, which have sections in charge of intellectual property, in the same manner as in patent-related court proceedings. Others think that only Tokyo District Court should be "mutual jurisdiction". In the end, the DRP-TF decided to adopt the provision of the ICANN Policy without making any changes.

(4) Restriction of "mutual jurisdiction" in which the registrant or the complainant can file a lawsuit after a decision is rendered

The ICANN's Policy and Rules of Procedure put constraints on the "mutual jurisdiction" of a registrant who has lost a dispute by a decision rendered. This aims to prevent the registrant from filing a lawsuit in a domestic or foreign court most convenient to the registrant with the intention of hindering the implementation of the decision. Specifically, the complainant is asked to select "mutual jurisdiction" when bringing a complaint. When the registrant loses a dispute in an administrative proceeding (i.e., a provider decides that the domain name should be canceled or transferred), the registrant can commence a lawsuit within ten days after the decision was informed. In this case, "mutual jurisdiction" is restricted according to Paragraph 4 (k) "Availability of Court Proceedings" of the Policy. On the other hand, there is no provision stipulating "mutual jurisdiction" for a complainant who has lost a dispute as the result of an administrative proceeding.

To strike a balance between the parties concerned, the first draft documents restricted "mutual jurisdiction" for a complainant who has lost a dispute by a decision and wishes to file a lawsuit. However, after further discussions, the DRP-TF decided to adopt provisions similar to those in the ICANN's Policy and Rules of Procedure.

3. Public comments and replies by the DRP-TF

Various public comments were sent to JPNIC in addition to those described above. The main comments and replies made by the DRP-TF are summarized below.

(1) Comments on the Policy and Rules of Procedure as a whole and replies by the DRP-TF

(1-1) Terminology

Comment:
The Policy and Rules of Procedure are almost direct translations of ICANN's equivalent documents and therefore contain too many redundancies. It seems necessary to write Japanese rules in a more natural style and language.
Reply:
The localizing work was carried out using Japanese translations of the ICANN Policy and Rules of Procedure, so the above problem certainly exists. Some awkward Japanese sentences have been rewritten (e.g., Paragraph 4 (b)(i), 4(c)(iii), 8 (ii) of the Policy, Paragraph 6 (e) and 19 (e) of the Rules of Procedure).

(1-2) Text and paragraph structure

Comment:
Text is written and arranged in an American style, but the Policy and Rules of Procedure are most likely to be used by Japanese legal experts. In view of this, the text should be written and arranged in the Japanese legal style.
Reply:
The Policy and Rules of Procedure have been formulated by localizing ICANN's Policy and Rules of Procedure. The DRP-TF considers it preferable to adopt the same text structure as ICANN's documents to facilitate comparison of the two policies and identification of some parts adopted directly and other parts localized to suit Japanese circumstances. In the future, we will have opportunities to compare decisions and proceeding results. In this regard too, it seems preferable to use ICANN's text structure.

(1-3) Relation with the Registration Rules

Comment:
All registrants shall agree to follow the Policy. It seems more appropriate to stipulate this requirement in the Registration Rules. A registrant's obligation of representations at the time of registration, availability of other dispute resolution proceedings, and JPNIC's non- involvement in a dispute should also be stipulated in the Registration Rules.
Reply:
The Registration Rules have been amended to incorporate a provision stipulating that the registrant shall agree to follow the Policy. (Registration Rules for Attribute-type (Organization-type) and Geographical JP Domain Names)
Chapter 10 Dispute Resolution
Paragraph 40 (Dispute Resolution)
The registrant shall agree to submit to a proceeding brought pursuant to the JP Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy in the event that a dispute arises with a third party over a registered domain name.
Since the Policy is incorporated by reference into the Registration Rules, the DRP-TF considers the provision on a registrant's obligation of representations at the time of registration is in effect. However, the comment that this obligation should be stipulated in the Registration Rules is valid, so we will consider adding an appropriate provision to the Registration Rules in future amendments.

(1-4) Other provisions that seem necessary

Comment:
Provisions on provisional proceedings, complaint withdrawal, and panelist's acceptance seem necessary.
Reply:
The DRP-TF has reached the conclusion that no provisional proceeding is necessary because this Policy is intended to carry out dispute resolution proceedings promptly.
A new provision stipulating the withdrawal of a complaint has been added based on the proposed sentences (Paragraph 17 of the Rules of Procedure).
The DRP-TF considers that a provision on panelist acceptance should be included in Supplemental Rules adopted by a dispute resolution service provider. Accordingly, it is not included in the Policy and Rules of Procedure.

(2) Comment on each provision of the Policy and replies by the DRP-TF

(2-1) Rights and responsibilities in terms of contract (Paragraph 2)

Comment:
A dispute may be brought to a court when it cannot be resolved by an administrative proceeding. In view of this possibility, we should try to define rights and responsibilities in terms of a contract involving a third party, not only on the level of dispute resolution agreement but also on the level of substantive problems.
Reply:
The DRP-TF considers that rights and responsibilities in terms of contract based on the Policy and Rules of Procedure concern only the "administrative proceeding for JP domain name dispute resolution". It is substantive law that controls rights and responsibilities on the substantive level, and thus it is imperative to establish substantive law.

(2-2) Meaning of "to the knowledge of the registrant" (Paragraph 2 (b))

Comment:
What does the phrase "to the knowledge of the registrant" mean? Is the registrant obliged to do research on trademarks?
Reply:
The DRP-TF interprets the phrase "to the knowledge of the registrant" as follows: the registrant declares his conviction that the domain name is not registered "in bad faith". If the domain name is judged to be used "in bad faith", the registrant will acknowledge his responsibility for the consequences of such improper use.

(2-3) Clarification of priority (Paragraph 3)

Comment:
Circumstances (a), (b) and (c) described in Paragraph 3 are likely to contradict one another. They should be prioritized.
Reply:
The DRP-TF finds no differences among (a), (b) and (c) in terms of priority.

(2-4) Evidence of registration and use "in bad faith" (Paragraph 4 (b))

Comment:
The "in bad faith" requirements should be relaxed so that legitimate trademark holders can apply for cancellation and transfer of domain names that contain well-known and famous trademarks.
Does Paragraph 4 (b)(iii) require the domain name actually to be in use?
Reply:
The DRP-TF has decided not to relax the requirements because this provision includes the phrase "in particular but without limitation".
Regarding Paragraph 4 (b)(iii), panelists are expected to make case-by- case judgment giving consideration to various factors including "whether or not the domain name is actually in use".

(2-5) Provision on consolidation (Paragraph 4 (f))

Comment:
Paragraph 4 (f) is based on the assumption that different panels are appointed to handle multiple disputes. This paragraph does not clarify what will happen to panels no longer appointed to hear disputes after consolidation.
When the same parties dispute multiple domain names, the same proceeding can obviously be used to resolve these disputes. On the other hand, it is not clear whether complaints against different parties can be consolidated or whether cross actions are permitted.
Reply:
The first panel appointed to hear a dispute has the right to decide whether or not to consolidate multiple disputes. Panels appointed later simply do not have to carry out the proceedings after consolidation.
It is not possible to consolidate complaints against different parties. This is represented by the absence of such a provision. It is also assumed that cross actions are not possible because the Policy and Rules of Procedure are intended to complete dispute resolutions quickly and also because the parties concerned, if not satisfied, are allowed to take their dispute to a court.

(3) Comments on each provision of the Rules of Procedure and replies by the DRP-TF

(3-1) Problem of e-mail communications (Paragraph 2 (a) and Paragraph 4 (c))

Comment:
In Japan, the problem of so-called "garbled characters" may occur due to incompatibility of systems between the e-mail sender and recipient. This problem should be considered in regard to the commencement date of an administrative proceeding.
Reply:
This is a problem of actual proceedings. The DRP-TF considers that measures can be taken, as necessary, in supplemental rules established by the dispute resolution service provider.

(3-2) Reverse domain name highjacking (Paragraph 15 (e))

Comment:
The phrase "reverse domain name highjacking" is not understood widely by the general public. It is preferable to use an expression that is easier to understand.
Reply:
This phrase has been paraphrased for better understanding as follows: "a conduct to use the Policy in bad faith in an attempt to deprive a registered domain name holder of a domain name".

(3-3) Communication of decision to JPNIC designated service providers (Paragraph 16 (a))

Comment:
When a decision requiring a domain name cancellation or transfer is made, the decision and the implementation date should also be reported to Internet service providers (ISP) who connect to the domain name holder.
Reply:
When a decision requiring a domain name cancellation or transfer is made, we will inform the JPNIC designated service provider that has obtained connection approval for the domain name.

4. Relations among the Policy, Rules of Procedure, and Registration Rules

Along with the establishment of the Policy and Rules of Procedure, JPNIC has amended the Registration Rules. Even when a "decision requiring a transfer" is made, the transferred domain name may not be usable if the registration requirements stipulated in the Registration Rules are not met. Accordingly, some additions are made to the Policy and Rules of Procedure. The DRP-TF has studied the following issues concerning the relations among the Policy, Rules of Procedure, and Registration Rules.

(1) Reference to the Registration Rules in the Policy and Rules of Procedure

JPNIC is currently considering a new domain name registration service that will be provided based on rules different from the conventional domain name registration rules. For this reason, JPNIC has changed the name "Domain Name Registration Rules" to "Registration Rules for Attribute-type (Organization-type) and Geographical JP Domain Names". The Registration Rules are referenced in the Policy and Rules of Procedure as follows:
(Paragraph 1 of the Policy)

Paragraph 1 Purpose

This JP Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy") has been adopted by the Japan Network Information Center (the "Center"), is incorporated by reference into the "Registration Rules for Attribute- type (Organization-type) and Geographical JP Domain Names" (the "Registration Rules") to be observed by a registrant of a domain name with the Center ("registrant"), and sets forth the terms and conditions in connection with a dispute between the registrant and a third party regarding the registration and use of an Internet domain name registered by the registrant. Proceedings under Paragraph 4 of this Policy will be conducted according to the Rules for JP Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules of Procedure") and supplemental rules established by a dispute resolution service provider ("Provider") approved by the Center.

(Paragraph 1 of the Policy)

  1. The "Registration Rules" refer to the "Registration Rules for Attribute-type (Organization-type) and Geographical JP Domain Names" that set forth terms of contract concluded between the Center and a domain name registrant.

(2) Reference to the Policy and Rules of Procedure in the Registration Rules

A new chapter making reference to the Policy and Rules of Procedure has been added to the Registration Rules for Attribute-type (Organization-type) and Geographical JP Domain Names.

(Registration Rules for Attribute-type (Organization-type) and Geographical JP Domain Names)
Chapter 10 Dispute Resolution
Paragraph 40 (Dispute Resolution)

The registrant shall agree to submit to a proceeding brought pursuant to the JP Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy in the event that a dispute arises with a third party over a registered domain name.

(3) Registration Rules amended to include a provision stipulating that a domain name can be canceled or transferred according to a decision rendered by an administrative proceeding of the JP Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

The Registration Rules for Attribute-type (Organization-type) and Geographical JP Domain Names have been amended to allow domain name cancellations and transfers according to decisions rendered by administrative proceedings brought pursuant to the JP Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.

(Registration Rules for Attribute-type (Organization-type) and Geographical JP Domain Names)
Paragraph 29 (Registration of Domain Name Transfer)

When an agreement is made between a registrant and a third party regarding a domain name transfer, the registrant can transfer the domain name by notifying the Center in the specified format and obtaining its approval.

2 Unless otherwise specified in this rule, a domain name transfer cannot be allowed when there are reasons for disapproving the registration by a third party to whom domain name registration is being transferred.

3 When the reason for disapproval described above is pursuant to Clause 1 of Paragraph 9, the third party may give notice of abolishing another domain name pursuant to Paragraph 26, at the same time as giving the transfer notice. When this notice is accepted, the Center considers there is no reason for disapproving of the transfer registration.

4 When an approved dispute resolution service provider decides that a domain name should be transferred and the registrant does not submit documents specified in Paragraph 4 (k) of the JP Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy") within ten business days (as observed in the location of the Center) after the decision was received by the Center, the Center transfers the domain name in accordance with the decision. Clause 2 will not be applied in this case.

5 On receiving a decision cited in the above provision, the Center shall immediately communicate to the approved dispute resolution service provider and the concerned parties the date for transfer registration.

Paragraph 31 (Cancellation of Registration)


The Center will cancel the registration of a domain name in the following circumstances:
  1. When the Center finds reasons for disapproving of a registration application
  2. When the registrant does not agree to the conditions stipulated in Clause 2 of Paragraph 4 or neglects the obligation stipulated in Clause 2 of Paragraph 26 or Paragraph 28
  3. When a third party submits a final decision, settlement record, mediation record, arbitration decision or any other original document that is valid in Japan and orders the suspension of the use of a registered domain name
  4. When the registration of the domain name gets to be obviously and practically not permissible in society
  5. When an approved dispute resolution service provider decides that a domain name should be canceled and the domain name registrant does not submit documentation proving the commencement of a lawsuit in a court within ten days of the notification of the decision

(4) Provision in the Registration Rules stipulating whether a domain name can be transferred during a dispute

The Registration Rules for Attribute-type (Organization-type) and Geographical JP Domain Names have been amended to include the following provision on "domain name transfers during a dispute".

(Registration Rules for Attribute-type (Organization-type) and Geographical JP Domain Names)
Paragraph 30 Special rules applied when an administrative proceeding for dispute resolution is commenced

Despite the provisions of Paragraphs 24, 26, 27 and the previous paragraph, a domain name transfer may not be allowed subject to Paragraph 8 of the JP Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. In this case, the Center will not accept a domain name change, abolition or transfer application unless the period specified in Paragraph 8 has passed or the processing specified herein is performed.

2 Items necessary for implementing the above provision, process of making changes in the original register file during an administrative proceeding, and other items associated with dispute resolution shall be handled by the methods specified by the Center.

(5) When a decision requires that a domain name be transferred to a complainant who does not satisfy registration requirements stipulated in the Registration Rules

The Registration Rules for Attribute-type (Organization-type) and Geographical JP Domain Names set forth the principle of "one domain name per organization" (Paragraph 9 of the Registration Rules), the principle of "local presence" (any JP domain name registrant shall have an address in Japan; Attachment 1 of the Registration Rules), and "registration qualification" by organization type (Paragraph 6 of the Registration Rules and Attachment 1).

Accordingly, when a decision requires a domain name to be transferred to a complainant who is not qualified or does not satisfy registration requirements, the domain name registration will be transferred, but the name will remain unusable (not configured in the name server). Specifically, the following circumstances are expected:

  1. When the complainant has already registered an attribute-type (organization-type) or geographical JP domain name (infringement of the principle of "one domain name per organization")
  2. When the complainant does not have an address in Japan (infringement of the principle of "local presence")
  3. When the complainant is not qualified for registration (e.g., an OR domain name is transferred to a company)

For this reason, the following description has been added to the Policy:

(Second sentence in Paragraph 3 of the Policy)

The Center will cancel or transfer domain name registrations in accordance with the Registration Rules or other legal requirements. However, when registration qualification or requirements set forth in the Registration Rules are not satisfied after the transfer of a domain name, the Center will not configure the domain name in the name server.

5. Appointment of dispute resolution service providers

JPNIC is currently conferring with several domestic and foreign organizations specialized in arbitration about the appointment of dispute resolution service providers that will govern administrative proceedings brought pursuant to the JP Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. By October 2000 when the Policy and Rules of Procedure will go into effect, JPNIC plans to approve several organizations as dispute resolution service providers and establish a cooperative system to help them start their operations.

6. Necessity of substantive law

When a JP domain name is registered or used in bad faith in violation of a third party's trademark or service mark, a dispute may occur between the third party and the registrant of the domain name. The Policy and Rules of Procedure provide a new method of resolving such disputes by simple, quick and proper proceedings. This method is legally designed to be applicable on the basis of a contract concluded between JPNIC and the domain name registrant and a contract concluded between JPNIC/domain name registrant and the above third party (i.e., the complainant seeking resolution of the dispute). While terms of contract can, in principle, be decided freely, the Policy and Rules of Procedure allow the concerned parties to file a lawsuit in a court. This attempt to ensure fairness is a major characteristic of the Policy and Rules of Procedure.

The Policy and Rules of Procedure presently do not protect the same objects or have the same substantive requirements as the Trademark Law and the Unfair Competition Prevention Law, which stipulate any mark such as a trademark or service mark. The Policy and Rules of Procedure can be strengthened when substantive law is established to back them up. In the United States, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) has been enforced to include the objects and substantive requirements of dispute resolution proceedings adopted by ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. It is desired that such substantive laws be enacted quickly in Japan, too.

Appendix 1: Task Force Member List

(Honorifics omitted, in alphabetical order, titles as of December 15, 1999)

Chief Examiner

Kazuko MATSUO
Attorney-at-Law and Patent Attorney at Nakamura and Partners; former chairman of Intellectual Property Committee at the Japan Federation of Bar Associations; currently chairman of the Design and Trademark Sub- committee of the Intellectual Property Committee; Managing Director of the Japan Trademark Association

Members

Yasuhiko OSHIMOTO
Patent Attorney at Oshimoto Patent and Trademark Office; former chairman of Trademark Committee of Japan Patent Attorneys Association; Deputy manager of Japan Trademark Association Office
Hisashi ODA
Legal Division, Fujitsu Ltd.; member of JEIDA, EIAJ, and JBMA Information Appliance Committee Intellectual Property Subcommittee; Member of the JPNIC Domain Name Working Group
Masanobu KATO
General Manager of Fujitsu Washington Office; member of the ICANN DNSO Names Council
Takeshi KIKUCHI
Attorney-at-Law at Shinbashi International Law Office; Vice president of Japan Industrial Property Arbitration Association; Director of Japan Commercial Arbitration Association
Tsugizo KUBO
Former Chairman of the Trademark Committee of Japan Intellectual Property Association (JIPA); Former member of the Panel of Experts for the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process; Member of the JPNIC Domain Name Working Group
Takeshi KOJIMA
Professor of Law at Chuo University Faculty of Law; Ministry of Justice Legislative Council on Civil Procedure; former president of Japan Civil Procedure Law Association
Keita SATO
Associate Professor of Law at Chuo University Faculty of Law
Kensuke NORICHIKA
Excecutive director of Software Information Center (SOFTIC); panel of experts for the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process
Naomasa MARUYAMA
Vice President of JPNIC
Naoki MIZUTANI
Mizutani Law and Patent Office; Attorney-at-Law; Patent Attorney; member of Intellectual Property Law Committee of Japan Federation of Bar Associations; special researcher of Software Information Center (SOFTIC)
Masami MUROMACHI
Attorney-at-Law; Tokyo Marunouchi Law Office
Kozo YABE
Attorney-at-Law
Yuasa and Hara
Vice Chair of Legal System Commitee, the Japan Trademark Association

Member and Coordinator

Toshihiro TSUBO
Member of the JPNIC Domain Name Working Group; President of Global Commons, Inc.
Observers
Ministry of International Trade and Industry; Japanese Patent Office; Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications

Appendix 2: Reference URLs

Rate this page

Did this page help you to achieve your goal?
Please let us know if you have any suggestions as to how we could improve this page.

If you require an answer, please contact us by email.