We are happy to share with you that our blog Disputing turns four today! Disputing was originally conceived by Karl Bayer and Rob Hargrove as a forum for discussion of legal developments as they happen. We have come a long way since our very first blog post: Two Law Review Articles have cited Disputing (here and here). Disputing was mentioned by the Wall Street Journal for covering consumer arbitration clauses and the “Arbitration Fairness Day.” Disputing has also been cited by several CLE presentations in Texas. Disputing‘s blogmaster was invited to guest-blog at the Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum. The Supreme Court of Texas Blog feeds Disputing‘s case summaries of decisions rendered by the Texas Supreme Court. Diane Levin named Disputing as One of the Five ADR Blogs to Add to your Reading List. Disputing is the only blog featured in the French Arbitration Database-La Base de Données sur le Droit de l’Arbitrage Interne et International. Disputing has teamed up with the Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum to create the Commercial and Industry Arbitration and Mediation Group on LinkedIn. Disputing is a mediate.com Featured Blog. We also have been honored to have commentaries and guest-posts by the following friends of this blog: Audrey L. Maness Don Philbin Glen M. Wilkerson The Honorable W. Royal Furgeson, Jr. Peter S. Vogel Philip J. Loree Jr. Professor Alan Scott Rau Professor Peter Friedman Rick Freeman We would like you to celebrate with us by leaving a reply on this post! Technorati Tags: ADR, law, arbitration

A panel at the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) decided recently the domain name dispute Lacoste Alligator S.A. v. LaCoste Healing Jewelry, WIPO Case No. D2009-0700. The Complainant is Lacoste Alligator, S.A., a clothing company famous for manufacturing tennis shirts, owner of the word mark LACOSTE (USPTO No. 1947111). Respondent is LaCoste Healing Jewelry, owned by Audrey LaCoste. The disputed domain name is <lacostejewelers.com>, registered by the Respondent on September, 2007. The panel discussed the following three-prong test: Domain name is identical of confusingly similar. The panel considered Complainant’s argument that Lacoste Alligator S.A. has a small line of watches, which could be considered “jewelry” and noted that in cases of abusive registration, it is common to see that a trademark is taken and a synergistic word is attached to it to create a confusingly similar name. However, the panel declined to make any findings under this element. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests. The panel concluded that: “Audrey LaCoste has reflected the name by which she is commonly known, and in which she would have certain rights, in a domain name related to her activities.” Domain was registered and used in bad faith. The panel found no evidence that the Respondent made “a blocking registration (and has, as would be required, engaged in a pattern of such conduct), or intended to disrupt the business of a competitor, or intended to divert the Complainant’s customers to its website.” In sum, because Complainant failed to prove that (a) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and (b) the domain name was registered and used in bad faith, the paned declined to order transfer of the domain name. It is worth noting that Audrey LaCoste did not reply to this Complaint and is not required to do so. Technorati Tags: ADR, law, domain names disputes, WIPO, arbitration

By Peter S. Vogel A software vendor made an arbitration demand that its hospital customer failed to pay thousands of dollars for its annual computer software maintenance support, and the hospital responded that it had terminated the agreements. Sounded like a pretty simple and straight forward dispute. At the preliminary telephone hearing the parties requested two days for the hearing. Discovery ran its normal course and the software vendor claimant and hospital respondent submitted witness statements and evidence before the hearing, which also seemed pretty standard. Simplified 2 Hour Hearing However as the hearing began the parties informed me that they had agreed to a new hearing format. The parties told me that indeed they needed less than a day for the hearing with a new format – PowerPoint and one witnesses. The claimant’s lawyer presented argument using 16 PowerPoint slides which took about an hour. No cross examination, that was it for the claimant. In response the respondent’s lawyer made a brief argument and asked his client’s sole representative to give his view of the dispute in the form of a monologue. Then the claimant’s lawyer briefly cross examined the respondent’s representative, no redirect. So the respondent’s case took about an hour as well. The parties submitted post hearing briefs and an award was subsequently made. Cost Effective Creative Hearing The parties were able to simplify the hearing by breaking the mold of a standard arbitration, using PowerPoint and eliminating needless witness testimony. I have encouraged other parties to consider this format during preliminary hearings since this case, and hope more arbitration hearings will follow creative formats that make the arbitration process most cost effective. Peter S. Vogel is a trial partner at Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP where he is Chair of the Electronic Discovery Group and Co-Chair of the Technology Industry Team. Before practicing law he worked as a computer programmer, received a Masters in Computer Science, and taught graduate courses in information systems. For 12 years he served as the founding Chair of the Texas Supreme Court on Judicial Information Technology which is responsible for helping automate the Texas court system and putting Internet on the desktops of all 3,200 judges. Peter has taught courses on the Law of eCommerce at the SMU Dedman School of Law since 2000. Many of Peter’s topics are discussed on his blog www.vogelitlawblog.com.

Karl Bayer came across an interesting article published by the Alternative Dispute Resolution Section of the State Bar of Texas. Written by Wendy Trachte-Huber and Stephen Huber, Third Party Claims Regarding Arbitration comments on opinions by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Texas Supreme Court, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals relating to the rights and duties of non-signatory parties to an arbitration agreement. Read the full article here. Technorati Tags: arbitration, ADR, law, Texas