[bc-gnso] ACDR conference call follow up

Mahmoud Lattouf mlattouf at agip.com
Wed Apr 3 11:53:09 UTC 2013

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 at agip.com<mailto:mlattouf at agip.com>
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20130403/9d144203/attachment.html>

More information about the Bc-gnso mailing list