Intellectual property offices as dispute resolution service providers: a dispute system design perspective

Intellectual property offices as dispute resolution service providers: a dispute system design perspective

Journal article

1 online resource

Intellectual property (IP) offices at different governance levels increasingly fulfill a prominent role as providers of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services. This allows IP offices to leverage their institutional expertise and experience in technically complex IP disputes resulting in procedural efficiency and expertise-based decisions. Despite these advantages, it is important to also consider some of the challenges, such as for instance aligning IP offices’ mixed roles and responsibilities as fora for treaty negotiations, policymakers, administrators of IP rights and designers and administrators of IP dispute systems. This article argues that it is important to consider how these different roles might have an impact on the perceptions and expectations regarding the dispute resolution system. We suggest that considering and applying principles of Dispute System Design (DSD) may provide IP offices with helpful inspiration to rethink (and possibly reform) certain principles or elements related to institutional design. Based on DSD principles, we advocate for mechanisms that prioritize stakeholder inclusivity in the design and operation of these systems, procedural transparency, and accountability safeguards. By analyzing IP office ADR systems through a DSD lens, this article advances a framework for resolving disputes that may contribute to strengthening the visibility of IP office ADR services, their institutional legitimacy, and safeguard equitable outcomes. As the role of IP offices in offering a variety of services, including ADR services, is evolving, their mandates are expanding and this is happening in more and more jurisdictions; this seems to be a timely and an important step.

Crossref

European Intellectual Property Review, 0142-0461 ; E.I.P.R. 2025, 47(8), 447-452

[New York, NY] : Thomson Reuters, 2025.

English

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Copyright

External Online Journals > European Intellectual Property Review