Abstract

As an alternative dispute resolution procedure, Domain Name Arbitration addresses not only contentions regarding the ownership of web pages, but also infringements of the Intellectual Property law such as cyber squatting or Internet piracy. In this spirit, panelists of the World Intellectual Property Organization enact law in accordance with what the involved parties provide them as burden of proof. Following this line of thought, we can assume that one party may remain unrepresented when it is not able to accomplish legal procedures successfully. Nevertheless, does this kind of asymmetry always function in the way that we presume? This paper sets out to study how WIPO panelists tackle knowledge asymmetries when being manifested in Domain Name Arbitration. In particular, this paper concentrates on comparing two Domain Name Arbitration processes in which knowledge asymmetries play a significant role in the panelist’s final-and legally binding- decision. This analysis also examines how specific text-internal features give us a hint of unbalanced relationships between the Complainant and the Respondent of a Domain Name Arbitration process. It endeavors, thus, to understand how lexical, rhetorical-grammatical and discursive features work within discourse and may reach to influence the communicative act itself. Following Vijay K. Bhatia’s critical discourse analysis as main theoretical framework, this paper tries to comprehend the role asymmetries play in enacting Domain Name law