Recently, a panel at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) granted Research in Motion 101 disputed domain names. In Research in Motion Limited v. Georges Elias, WIPO Case No. D2009-0218, the Complainant is Research in Motion, the owner of the registered marks for BLACKBERRY (U.S. and Canada) and BERRY (Hong Kong). Respondent is Georges Elias, who registered the disputed 111 domain names with GoDaddy.com. The panel applied the following test : The domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights; The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names; and The domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. After discussing the findings, the panel ordered 101 domain names to be transferred to Research in Motion. Those included creative names like: obamaberry.com, blackberrito.com, and blackberrychic.com. The panel, however, denied the transfer of 10 domain names: berrymom.com, berrydelsol.com, iqberry.com, berryverde.com, verdeberry.com, berrynegro.com, hisberry.com, mommyberry.com, sheberry.com, and copberry.com. Technorati Tags: ADR, law, domain names disputes, WIPO, arbitration

In response to the National Public Radio (NPR) story blogged here, Forthright, the administrator for the National Arbitration Forum sent this letter to NPR (link to pdf here). In the letter, Forthright’s CEO addresses the issues of: consumer outcomes in arbitration, claims by former arbitrator Elizabeth Bartholet, and the benefits of arbitration. Thanks to Forthright for sending us the letter and allowing us to share it with our readers.

As posted in our Commercial and Industry Arbitration and Mediation Group on LinkedIn, yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to Stolt-Nielsen SA v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 548 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2008). The issue to be decided is whether imposing class arbitration on parties whose arbitration clauses are silent on that issue is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act. You can find background about this important case following the links from our recent post: Sonia Sotomayor Meets Posner: Standards of Review for Arbitration Awards After Hall Street. See links to the case briefs here: Petitions to Watch: Conference of 6.11.09 (SCOTUS Blog). See also related posts for further commentary: Supreme Court Not Likely to Consider Manifest Disregard in Class Action Arbitration Case (Marc J. Goldstein) Supreme Court Grants Cert in Another FAA-related case (ADR Prof Blog) Update: Certiorari Granted in the Stolt-Nielsen Case! (Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum) Technorati Tags: arbitration, ADR, law, FAA, Supreme Court, Stolt-Nielsen, class action

Last Friday, the Texas Supreme Court held that a party challenging a forum-selection clause has the burden of proving the clause is invalid. In In re International Profit Associates, Inc, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. 2009) (Cause No. 08-0531), Riddell Plumbing, Inc. (Riddell) hired International Profit Associates, Inc. (IPA) to provide consulting services. Their contract contains the following forum-selection clause: At [Riddell’s] election, [IPA agrees] that all disputes of any kind between the parties arising out of or in connection with these respective independent agreements shall be submitted to binding arbitration . . . . With regard to all other matters, exclusive jurisdiction and venue shall vest in the Nineteenth Judicial District of Lake County, Illinois, Illinois Law applying. Riddell sued IPA because it was dissatisfied with IPA’s services. IPA filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to the forum-selection clause in their agreement. The trial court denied IPA’s motion because IPA “did not sustain [its] burden of proving that the page of the contract containing the forum selection clause was ever presented [to Riddell].” IPA appealed and the appellate court denied IPA’s petition for writ without explanation. The Texas Supreme Court, citing In re Int’l Profit Assocs., Inc., 274 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. 2009), explained that “as a general rule, forum-selection clauses are enforceable, and the party challenging the forum-selection clause bears a heavy burden of proof.” The court also stated that a court abused its discretion unless the party resisting enforcement of the clause clearly shows that: (1) enforcement would be unreasonable or unjust, (2) the clause is invalid for reasons of fraud or overreaching, (3) enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum where the suit was brought, or (4) the selected forum would be seriously inconvenient for trial. Accordingly, the Texas Supreme Court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by improperly placing the burden of proof on IPA. Technorati Tags: arbitration, ADR, law, Texas Supreme Court