WIPO ARBITRATION RULES

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTE RESOLUTION

PROJECT SUBMITTED TO: ILSCA

SUBMITTED BY:

Name: AKHILESH SINGH

Course: DIPLOMA

Institution: ILSCA
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I express my sincere gratitude to my faculty guide for providing valuable

guidance and encouragement throughout the completion of this project. I am also

thankful to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) publications

and resources that greatly assisted me in understanding the framework of

international arbitration and intellectual property dispute resolution.

I further extend my gratitude to ILSCA institution, friends, and family for their

continuous support and motivation.

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project titled “WIPO Arbitration Rules: A

Comprehensive Study of International Intellectual Property Dispute

Resolution” has been successfully completed and submitted by AKHILESH

SINGH in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the course during the

academic year 2025–2026.

The work embodied in this project is original and carried out under my

supervision.

Supervisor Signature: _____________________

Date: _____________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Topic Page

No.

Abstract 4

1 Introduction to WIPO 5

2 Meaning and Evolution 6

of Arbitration

3 Arbitrability of 6
Intellectual Property
Disputes

3.1 Arbitrability of 6
Infringement Disputes

3.2 Arbitrability of 7
Validity of IPR

3.3 Arbitrability in 7
Different Countries
(Germany, France, etc.)

4 WIPO Arbitration and 9

Mediation Center

5 Historical Development 9
of WIPO Arbitration
Rules

6 Nature and Scope of 10

WIPO Arbitration

7 Objectives of WIPO 10
Arbitration Rules

8 Salient Features of 11
WIPO Arbitration

9 Commencement of 11
Arbitration
Proceedings

10 Request for Arbitration 11

and Answer
11 Composition and 12
Appointment of
Tribunal

12 Independence and 12
Impartiality of
Arbitrators

13 Jurisdiction of the 13
Tribunal

14 Conduct of Arbitral 13
Proceedings

15 Written Statements and 13

Pleadings

16 Interim Measures and 14

Emergency Relief

17 Confidentiality under 14
WIPO Rules

18–28 Content missing from —

provided document

29 Bibliography / 15
References
 ABSTRACT

With the increase of globalization of trade, technology, and innovation the

importance of efficient international dispute resolution mechanisms has also
increased. Intellectual property disputes frequently involve parties from different
jurisdictions, confidential technological information, and highly specialized legal
issues. Which when resolved through the traditional way of dispute resolution
becomes complex and it often fails to provide a flexible, confidential, and
technically competent forum for resolving such disputes. Which makes it
important to adopt and implement new ways of dispute resolution for these
matters. In this context, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
Arbitration Rules provide a modern and internationally recognized framework for
dispute resolution.
This project critically examines the WIPO Arbitration Rules, their procedural
structure, practical application, advantages, and challenges. The study explores
the functioning of the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, commencement
of proceedings, appointment of arbitrators, conduct of hearings, confidentiality
obligations, interim measures, and enforcement of awards. It further evaluates the
role of WIPO arbitration in intellectual property and technology-related disputes
and compares it with traditional litigation and other arbitration frameworks.
The project concludes that WIPO arbitration represents one of the most
specialized and effective mechanisms for resolving international intellectual
property disputes in the contemporary global economy.
1. INTRODUCTION TO WIPO

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is a specialized agency of

the United Nations dedicated to promoting innovation and the protection of
intellectual property rights across the world which helps the trades and
developments to grow globally. It was established with the objective of
encouraging creativity and ensuring international cooperation in intellectual
property protection. The WIPO was stablished as international governing body
for IPRs and other business protection.
In new modern commercial world where the IPRs play the major role and has
become one of the most valuable assets for corporations, inventors, software
developers, entertainment industries, pharmaceutical companies, and technology
enterprises. As commercial transactions increasingly cross national borders,
disputes involving patents, trademarks, copyrights, licensing agreements,
software, and technology transfer have also become international in character.
Traditional court litigation often proves inadequate for such disputes because of
reasons such as:
a) Litigation is time-consuming.
b) Proceedings are generally public.
c) National courts may lack technical expertise.
d) Multiple lawsuits may be required in different countries.
e) Jurisdictional conflicts may arise.
To overcome these limitations, WIPO established the WIPO Arbitration and
Mediation Center, which provides Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
services specifically designed for intellectual property and technology disputes.
WIPO arbitration has emerged as a preferred mechanism because it combines
confidentiality, expertise, neutrality, flexibility, and enforceability. WIPO, being
an internationally governed body, can manage these more efficiently and provide
a more reliable option.

2. MEANING AND EVOLUTION OF ARBITRATION

Arbitration is a dispute resolution mechanism in which parties agree to submit
disputes to one or more neutral arbitrators whose decision is binding upon them.
Unlike litigation, arbitration is based on party autonomy and contractual consent.
According to the Guide to WIPO Arbitration, arbitration is “a procedure in which
a dispute is submitted, by agreement of the parties, to one or more arbitrators for
a binding decision.”
Historical Development
The concept of arbitration is ancient and existed in:
 Roman law
 Greek commercial practice
 Medieval merchant guild systems
 International trade customs
 Modern international arbitration developed significantly after:
 The Geneva Protocol (1923)
 The New York Convention (1958)
 The UNCITRAL Model Law (1985)
Arbitration gradually became the preferred method for international commercial
disputes due to its neutrality and enforceability.

3. ARBITRABILITY OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES

Arbitrability refers to the question of whether a particular dispute can legally be
resolved through arbitration. In simple terms, it determines which disputes are
capable of settlement by arbitral tribunals and which disputes must remain within
the jurisdiction of national courts. The issue of arbitrability is highly significant
in international arbitration because it directly affects the validity and
enforceability of arbitral proceedings and awards.
The concept of arbitrability has two major legal consequences. First, under the
New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral
Awards, non-arbitrability is a valid ground for refusing recognition and
enforcement of a foreign arbitral award. Second, if the subject matter of a dispute
is considered non-arbitrable under the applicable law, the arbitration agreement
itself may become invalid. Both consequences are closely linked with procedural
public policy considerations and often create challenges during the enforcement
stage of arbitral awards.
3.1. Arbitrability of Intellectual Property Infringement Disputes
In modern legal systems, disputes concerning infringement of intellectual
property rights are generally considered arbitrable. Intellectual property rights are
viewed as private proprietary rights possessing commercial and economic value.
Since infringement disputes mainly concern the relationship between the right
holder and the alleged infringer, arbitral awards in such matters usually operate
only between the parties to the dispute (inter partes effect).
This liberal approach recognizes intellectual property rights as intangible and
transferable assets capable of private disposition. Therefore, disputes involving
patent infringement, copyright infringement, trademark misuse, software
licensing breaches, and similar issues are often resolved through arbitration.
However, certain legal systems adopt a more restrictive approach. In some
jurisdictions, industrial property rights such as patents and trademarks are
regarded as matters closely connected with public authority because such rights
are granted through administrative acts of the state. Consequently, disputes
relating to these rights may be treated as non-arbitrable on public policy grounds.
In such cases, courts are considered to possess exclusive jurisdiction over
intellectual property disputes.
3.2. Arbitrability of Validity of Intellectual Property Rights
While infringement disputes are widely accepted as arbitrable, disputes
concerning the validity of intellectual property rights remain controversial in
many jurisdictions.
The validity of industrial property rights such as patents and trademarks is often
considered non-arbitrable for two principal reasons.
First, industrial property rights are generally registered in official public
registries. These registries create rights enforceable against the entire world (erga
omnes effect). Arbitration agreements, on the other hand, bind only the parties to
the agreement. Since arbitral awards operate inter partes, arbitrators cannot make
decisions affecting third parties or alter public registries maintained by state
authorities.
Second, industrial property rights are granted through administrative acts of
governmental institutions. Because arbitrators are private adjudicators rather than
public authorities, many legal systems do not permit them to invalidate rights
granted by state agencies. Therefore, the cancellation or invalidation of patents
and trademarks is often reserved exclusively for courts or administrative bodies.
Nevertheless, arbitral tribunals may sometimes consider validity issues
incidentally while deciding infringement or contractual disputes. This approach
helps avoid parallel proceedings where infringement claims are resolved in
arbitration while validity issues are simultaneously litigated before national
courts.
Another important distinction exists between industrial property rights and
copyrights. Ownership disputes relating to copyrights are generally considered
arbitrable because copyrights are not dependent upon mandatory public
registration systems. Consequently, copyright disputes usually do not raise the
same public policy concerns associated with patents and trademarks.

3.3. 1. Arbitrability of Intellectual Property Rights in Different Countries

3.3.2. Germany
Under German law, disputes are arbitrable if the parties are legally capable of
settling them through a private agreement. Unregistered intellectual property
rights have traditionally been regarded as arbitrable without controversy.
After amendments to German arbitration law, parties gained broader freedom to
submit disputes concerning private rights to arbitration, including disputes
relating to industrial property rights. However, German law does not permit
arbitral tribunals to invalidate registered industrial property rights because such
invalidation produces erga omnes effects and is considered incompatible with
German public policy. Therefore, while infringement and contractual disputes
may be arbitrated, the formal invalidation of registered rights remains within the
jurisdiction of state courts.
3.3.4. France
French law recognizes the arbitrability of disputes involving rights that parties
may freely dispose of. As a result, intellectual property disputes are generally
considered arbitrable in France.
However, Article 2060 of the French Civil Code excludes matters involving
public policy from arbitration. Since industrial property rights create effects
against third parties and involve public interests, the invalidation of such rights is
generally regarded as non-arbitrable.
French courts have nevertheless adopted a nuanced approach. Intellectual
property infringement disputes are considered arbitrable because they primarily
concern private disputes between right holders and alleged infringers. At one
stage, the Paris Court of Appeal accepted that arbitral tribunals could examine the
validity of intellectual property rights incidentally while resolving contractual or
infringement disputes, provided that the effect remained inter partes. This
approach was welcomed by practitioners because it discouraged parties from
using validity claims merely as delaying tactics. However, subsequent judicial
decisions adopted a more restrictive position.
3.3.5. Switzerland
Switzerland adopts one of the most liberal approaches toward the arbitrability of
intellectual property disputes. Swiss law allows arbitration of disputes concerning
rights that parties may freely dispose of, and intellectual property rights are
generally regarded as private rights.
Accordingly, both contractual and non-contractual intellectual property disputes
may be resolved through arbitration in Switzerland. Swiss arbitral tribunals may
also address questions concerning the validity of registered intellectual property
rights. However, the ultimate invalidation of such rights generally requires
confirmation or approval by national courts. Thus, while arbitration plays a
significant role, Swiss courts retain final authority over changes to official
intellectual property registries.
3.3.6. South Korea
South Korea adopts a comparatively restrictive approach regarding arbitrability
of intellectual property disputes. Under South Korean law, only commercial
disputes are generally considered arbitrable. Intellectual property disputes are not
traditionally categorized as commercial disputes for arbitration purposes.
As a consequence, arbitral awards concerning intellectual property disputes may
face refusal of recognition or enforcement in South Korea on grounds of non-
arbitrability. This restrictive position creates practical difficulties for
international parties seeking enforcement of foreign arbitral awards involving
intellectual property rights.
3.3.6. Turkey
Turkish law does not contain a specific statutory provision directly regulating the
arbitrability of intellectual property disputes. Instead, arbitrability is determined
under general provisions relating to private law disputes.
According to Article 408 of the Turkish Civil Procedure Code and Article 1 of
the International Arbitration Act, disputes involving rights that parties may freely
dispose of are arbitrable. The criterion for arbitrability is the same in both
domestic and international arbitration.
Under Turkish law, disputes concerning the validity of industrial property rights
are generally considered non-arbitrable. The primary reason is that arbitral
awards bind only the parties and cannot affect third parties or alter public
registries. Industrial property rights such as patents and trademarks are registered
rights that produce erga omnes effects throughout their protection period.
Furthermore, industrial property rights are granted through administrative acts of
public authorities. Since arbitrators act as private adjudicators, they cannot
invalidate administrative acts issued by state institutions. Consequently, disputes
concerning the validity of industrial property rights fall within the exclusive
jurisdiction of Turkish courts.

4. WIPO ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER

The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center was established in 1994 in Geneva,
Switzerland.
The Center provides:
 Arbitration
 Expedited arbitration
 Mediation
 Expert determination
 Domain name dispute resolution
The Center administers disputes involving:
 Patent licensing
 Software agreements
 Research collaborations
 Trademark coexistence agreements
 Biotechnology disputes
 Copyright licensing
 Entertainment contracts
The Center maintains a panel of highly qualified arbitrators and mediators from
more than 100 countries.
Functions of the Center
The Center assists parties by:
1. Appointing arbitrators and mediators
2. Administering proceedings
3. Managing procedural timelines
4. Handling deposits and fees
5. Providing hearing facilities
6. Assisting in communication and logistics

5. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF WIPO ARBITRATION RULES

The WIPO Arbitration Rules were developed to address the growing need for
specialized dispute resolution in intellectual property and technology sectors.
The rules were drafted by leading experts in:
 International arbitration
 Intellectual property law
 Technology disputes
 Commercial law
The Rules have evolved to incorporate:
 Electronic communication
 Emergency relief procedures
 Third-party funding disclosure
 Expedited arbitration
 Confidentiality protections
The 2021 Rules modernized proceedings further by recognizing digital
communication systems and improving procedural efficiency.

6. NATURE AND SCOPE OF WIPO ARBITRATION

WIPO arbitration is contractual in nature. Parties voluntarily agree to submit
disputes to arbitration through an arbitration clause or submission agreement.
Scope of Application
Article 2 states that where parties agree to arbitration under WIPO Rules, those
rules become part of the arbitration agreement.
The Rules apply to disputes involving:
 Commercial contracts
 Intellectual property rights
 Technology transfer
 International licensing
 Joint ventures
 Research agreements
The Rules are applicable irrespective of nationality, domicile, or legal system.

7. OBJECTIVES OF WIPO ARBITRATION RULES

The primary objectives include:
1. Efficient Resolution
WIPO aims to provide faster resolution than traditional litigation.
2. Confidentiality
Protection of trade secrets and confidential business information is central to
WIPO proceedings.
3. Neutral Forum
Parties from different countries can select neutral arbitrators and venues.
4. Technical Expertise
Disputes are decided by experts with specialized knowledge.
5. International Enforceability
Awards are enforceable under the New York Convention.
6. Procedural Flexibility
Parties may tailor procedures according to their needs.

8. SALIENT FEATURES OF WIPO ARBITRATION

(a) Party Autonomy
Parties may determine:
 Language
 Applicable law
 Number of arbitrators
 Venue
 Procedure
(b) Confidentiality
Articles 75–78 ensure confidentiality of proceedings and awards.
(c) Specialized Arbitrators
WIPO arbitrators possess expertise in:
  Patent law
 Trademark disputes
 Biotechnology
 Software licensing
 Telecommunications
(d) Flexibility
Procedural rigidity is minimized.
(e) International Character
Proceedings are suitable for cross-border disputes.

9. COMMENCEMENT OF ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS

Arbitration commences with the filing of a Request for Arbitration before the
WIPO Center.
Article 7 states that arbitration commences on the date the Request is received by
the Center.
The Request must be served upon the respondent simultaneously.

10. REQUEST FOR ARBITRATION AND ANSWER

Request for Arbitration
Article 9 requires the Request to contain:
 Names and addresses of parties
 Arbitration agreement
 Description of dispute
 Relief sought
 Amount claimed
 Arbitrator nomination
 Third-party funding disclosure
Answer to Request
Article 11 requires the respondent to submit an Answer within 30 days.
The Answer may contain:
 Defenses
 Counterclaims
 Objections
 Jurisdictional challenges

11. COMPOSITION AND APPOINTMENT OF TRIBUNAL

The composition and establishment of the arbitral tribunal constitute one of the
most important stages in WIPO arbitration proceedings. The effectiveness,
neutrality, and legitimacy of arbitration largely depend upon the proper
appointment of arbitrators. Under the WIPO Arbitration Rules, parties are given
substantial freedom to determine the composition of the tribunal, thereby
reflecting the principle of party autonomy which forms the foundation of
international arbitration. According to Article 14 of the WIPO Arbitration Rules,
the tribunal may consist either of a sole arbitrator or three arbitrators depending
upon the agreement between the parties.
Where the parties have not agreed upon the number of arbitrators, the WIPO
Center generally appoints a sole arbitrator unless the complexity or circumstances
of the dispute require a three-member tribunal. In cases involving a sole
arbitrator, the parties jointly nominate the arbitrator within the prescribed period.
If the parties fail to make the appointment, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation
Center appoints the arbitrator under Article 19.
In proceedings involving three arbitrators, the claimant appoints one arbitrator in
the Request for Arbitration, while the respondent appoints another arbitrator
within thirty days of receiving the request. The two appointed arbitrators then
nominate the presiding arbitrator. If any party fails to appoint an arbitrator within
the specified time, the Center intervenes and makes the appointment. This
mechanism ensures procedural efficiency and prevents unnecessary delays in the
constitution of the tribunal.
The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center plays a crucial administrative role
during this stage. The Center maintains a database of highly qualified neutrals
from different countries possessing expertise in intellectual property law,
technology disputes, commercial transactions, and international arbitration. This
enables parties to appoint arbitrators with technical and legal expertise relevant
to the nature of the dispute.

12. INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY OF ARBITRATORS

The legitimacy and fairness of arbitration proceedings depend heavily upon the
neutrality, independence, and impartiality of arbitrators. The WIPO Arbitration
Rules contain detailed safeguards to ensure that arbitrators perform their
functions objectively and without bias. Article 22 expressly provides that every
arbitrator must remain impartial and independent throughout the arbitration
proceedings.
Before accepting appointment, a prospective arbitrator is required to disclose any
circumstances that may give rise to justifiable doubts regarding his or her
impartiality or independence. Such disclosures may include financial interests,
professional relationships, prior involvement with the parties, or any other
circumstances capable of affecting neutrality. If new circumstances arise during
the course of arbitration, the arbitrator must immediately disclose them to the
parties, the tribunal, and the WIPO Center.
The Rules also provide parties with the right to challenge arbitrators. Grounds for
challenge generally include bias, conflict of interest, prior relationships with a
party, or any circumstance creating doubts regarding independence. This system
protects procedural fairness and reinforces confidence in the arbitral process.
Since intellectual property disputes often involve substantial commercial interests
and confidential technological information, maintaining arbitrator neutrality is
particularly important in WIPO proceedings.

13. JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL

The arbitral tribunal possesses authority to determine its own jurisdiction under
the internationally recognized principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz. This
principle allows the tribunal to decide whether it has jurisdiction to hear the
dispute without requiring prior judicial determination. The WIPO Arbitration
Rules recognize this principle and empower the tribunal to examine the validity,
existence, and scope of the arbitration agreement.
The tribunal may therefore determine issues relating to:
 The existence of a valid arbitration agreement
 The scope and interpretation of the arbitration clause
 Arbitrability of the dispute
 Validity of claims and counterclaims
Jurisdictional objections are generally raised at an early stage of proceedings in
order to avoid unnecessary delay and expense. This principle strengthens the
efficiency and autonomy of international arbitration by reducing excessive court
intervention.

14. CONDUCT OF ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS

The WIPO Arbitration Rules provide the arbitral tribunal with broad authority to
conduct proceedings in a fair, flexible, and efficient manner. Article 37 grants
general procedural powers to the tribunal for the administration of arbitration
proceedings.
The tribunal must ensure equal treatment of parties and provide each party with
a full and fair opportunity to present its case. WIPO arbitration emphasizes
procedural flexibility, allowing proceedings to be adapted according to the
complexity and technical nature of intellectual property disputes.
The WIPO system also encourages procedural efficiency through preparatory
conferences, electronic communications, and active case management. These
mechanisms are particularly important in international intellectual property
disputes involving parties from different jurisdictions.

15. WRITTEN STATEMENTS AND PLEADINGS

Written pleadings form the foundation of arbitral proceedings under the WIPO
Arbitration Rules. The claimant ordinarily submits a Statement of Claim
containing the factual background, legal arguments, evidence, and relief sought.
The respondent subsequently files a Statement of Defense responding to the
allegations and may also raise counterclaims or set-offs.
The pleadings generally include:
 Relevant facts
 Legal contentions
 Documentary evidence
 Technical reports
 Relief or remedies sought
The tribunal may permit additional submissions such as replies, rejoinders, and
supplementary written statements where necessary for proper adjudication of the
dispute. The written phase of proceedings is particularly significant in intellectual
property arbitration because disputes often involve highly technical subject
matter requiring detailed explanation and documentary evidence.
16. INTERIM MEASURES AND EMERGENCY RELIEF
Interim measures are temporary remedies granted to protect parties’ rights during
the pendency of arbitration proceedings. Article 48 of the WIPO Arbitration
Rules authorizes the tribunal to grant interim measures of protection and security.
Such interim measures may include:
 Preservation of evidence
 Injunctions restraining infringement
 Freezing of assets
 Orders for confidentiality protection
 Security for costs
The 2021 WIPO Rules also contain provisions regarding emergency relief
proceedings under Article 49. These provisions allow parties to seek urgent relief
before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. Emergency arbitrators may issue
temporary orders where immediate action is necessary to prevent irreparable
harm or preserve the status quo.
This mechanism is particularly valuable in intellectual property disputes where
unauthorized use of technology, disclosure of trade secrets, or ongoing
infringement may cause irreversible commercial damage.

17. CONFIDENTIALITY UNDER WIPO RULES

Confidentiality is one of the most important and distinctive features of WIPO
arbitration. Intellectual property disputes frequently involve trade secrets,
confidential business information, proprietary technology, source code, and
commercially sensitive research data. The WIPO Arbitration Rules therefore
contain extensive provisions regarding confidentiality.
Articles 75 to 78 provide protection regarding:
 The existence of arbitration proceedings
 Confidential disclosures made during arbitration
 Confidentiality of awards
 Confidentiality obligations of arbitrators and the Center
The Rules also specifically address the disclosure of trade secrets and confidential
information during evidentiary proceedings. These safeguards are extremely
important in intellectual property disputes because parties are often reluctant to
disclose sensitive commercial information in public court proceedings.
Confidentiality protects competitive interests, preserves commercial reputation,
and encourages parties to resolve disputes efficiently without public exposure.

REFERENCES:
1. World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO Arbitration Rules (WIPO
2021).
2. World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO Arbitration, Mediation
and Expert Determination Rules and Clauses (WIPO Publication No
446(E), 2009).
3. Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration (3rd edn, Kluwer Law
International 2021).
4. Nigel Blackaby and others, Redfern and Hunter on International
Arbitration (7th edn, OUP 2022).
5. Julian DM Lew, Loukas Mistelis and Stefan Kröll, Comparative
International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 2003).
6. New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign
Arbitral Awards (adopted 10 June 1958, entered into force 7 June 1959)
330 UNTS 3.
7. UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 (as
amended in 2006).
8. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPS Agreement) 1869 UNTS 299.
9. Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40, [2007]
4 All ER 951.
10. Premium Nafta Products Ltd v Fili Shipping Co Ltd [2007] UKHL 40,
[2007] Bus LR 1719.
11. Mitsubishi Motors Corp v Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc 473 US 614
(1985).
12. Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc v SBI Home Finance Ltd (2011) 5 SCC 532.
13. Vidya Drolia v Durga Trading Corporation (2021) 2 SCC 1.
14. A Ayyasamy v A Paramasivam (2016) 10 SCC 386.
15. Emmanuel Gaillard and John Savage (eds), Fouchard Gaillard Goldman
on International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International
1999).
16. Alan Redfern and Martin Hunter, Law and Practice of International
Commercial Arbitration (4th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2004).
17. WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, ‘WIPO ADR Services for
Intellectual Property Disputes’ [Link] accessed 20
May 2026.
18. David Perkins, ‘Arbitrating Intellectual Property Disputes’ (2004) 25(3)
European Intellectual Property Review 102.
19. Catherine Rogers, ‘The Vocation of the International Arbitrator’ (2005)
20(5) American University International Law Review 957.
20. Thomas Schultz and Robert Kovacs, ‘The Rise of a Third Generation of
International Arbitration?’ (2012) 28(2) Arbitration International 161.

These citations are prepared in OSCOLA 14 th ed. footnote format.