As a recap of the previous posts, to succeed in a dispute under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP” or “Policy”), the complainant must prove three elements: 

1. That the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights (see here); 

2. That the domain name holder has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name (see here); and

3. That the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The current blog post will analyze the third element in detail.

Traditional Investor-State Arbitration frameworks have been criticized for its opacity, high costs, and vulnerability to human bias. This blog post investigates the integration of artificial intelligence into investor-state arbitration and evaluates its potential to improve efficiency, impartiality, and transparency. The central question is whether artificial intelligence can overcome these challenges while upholding the ethical and legal foundations of arbitration, particularly by enhancing decision-making in investor-state arbitration, with a focus on increasing transparency and maintaining the delicate balance between investor protection and national sovereignty. Its potential to reduce human errors and biases while upholding procedural justice is critically assessed.

To succeed under the UDRP, a complainant must establish that the domain name holder lacks any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain. This second element often becomes a decisive battleground, requiring panels to assess competing claims of bona fide use, fair use, and legitimate business activity. This article explores how UDRP panels approach this analysis in practice, including key defenses, evidentiary standards, and the burden-shifting framework.

To succeed under the UDRP, a complainant must first prove that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights. This guide explores the first element in detail, including trademark rights, common law marks, and how panels assess confusing similarity in practice.

Agentic AI investment is increasing rapidly, attracting interest and scrutiny from regulators, innovators, and technology adopters. On 8 January 2026, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) released its ICO Tech Futures: Agentic AI Report, focusing on agentic AI. The ICO’s report aims to build an evidence base on the technology’s current state and associated data protection risks, while encouraging privacy-led innovation (ICO Tech Futures: Agentic AI Report, 2026).

ICO publications have often signalled regulatory priorities and operational expectations. In emerging areas like distributed ledger technologies, the ICO’s guidance has set design-phase compliance expectations and prompted active industry engagement (ICO Guidance on Distributed Ledger Technologies, 2024).

In previous posts, we covered the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), its main features as well as the roadmap of the procedure and the three elements that a complainant must prove. In this post, we will examine the steps that brand owners are recommended to take in order to safeguard their trademark(s) and domain name(s), thereby enhancing their position and prospects of success in the event of proceedings under the UDRP.

Artificial intelligence is no longer theory—it is rewriting markets, governance, and the way legal professionals work. From practical use cases to the unsettling race toward artificial general intelligence, Nicolas Torrent offers a grounded yet sobering view of where we stand.
He discusses AI’s impact on legal education, the cognitive risks of outsourcing thinking, the geopolitical arms race between the US and China, and why alignment, ethics, and resilience may determine whether humanity thrives—or falls behind its own creations.

From dismantling his childhood toys to co-creating one of the earliest digital arbitration platforms, Nicolas Torrent has never been content with simply “practicing law.” His career spans startups in Switzerland and France, community platforms, legal tech ventures, business development, and in-house counsel for a global tech-driven company.
In this interview, he speaks candidly about what it means to be a lawyer-entrepreneur, why the failures matter more than the successes, and how innovation often comes down to timing, resilience, and the courage to move beyond traditional legal paths.

In a previous post, we described how the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP” or “Policy”) was put in place, what types of disputes it is designed to solve, who administers the proceedings, and who the decision-makers are. 

We will now present a roadmap of the procedure, what a complainant must prove, what the costs, duration and relevant enforcement issues are. 

After conducting 117 interviews over 70+ hours and engaging extensively with the arbitration community, Dr. Thomas Lehmann shifts from interviewer to interviewee. In this conversation, we delve into the making of the 2025 International Arbitration Survey, led by the School of International Arbitration at Queen Mary University of London in partnership with White & Case. From drafting and refining the questions to gathering millions of data points and distilling them into a clear snapshot of the arbitration landscape, Thomas shares insights into the process, and focuses on the big question: How does the arbitration community view technology? We explore key concerns and reflect on a few ideas about the future.

Domain name disputes have become a central issue in today’s digital economy, where trademarks and online identities often collide. This article introduces the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), the system developed to resolve cases of cybersquatting and abusive registrations swiftly and cost-effectively. From the history of the UDRP to its jurisdiction, procedures, and differences from arbitration or court litigation, the post explores the key features that shape how domain name disputes are handled worldwide.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer a futuristic concept in international arbitration. It’s here—embedded in daily workflows and reshaping how disputes are managed from start to finish. While much has been said about AI’s potential, this post focuses on how it’s actually being used in practice right now.

Smart contracts are rapidly shaping the future of blockchain and digital assets — and with them comes a wave of new disputes, questions, and opportunities for arbitration. Sean McCarthy, co-editor of Transforming Arbitration: Exploring the Impact of AI, Blockchain, Metaverse and Web3 and co-founder of ArbTech, gives his insights on what practitioners need to know.

The not-for-profit American Arbitration Association (AAA) is the largest private global provider of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services in the world, with nearly 100 years of experience.

The International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) is the international division of AAA. The ICDR is the foremost provider of global conflict-resolution solutions to businesses and organizations involved in cross-border disputes.

Artificial intelligence is no longer “arriving” in arbitration — it is already embedded in how disputes are researched, prepared, filed, and managed.

What has changed in 2026 is not just the technology itself, but the expectations around it. Speed, cost-efficiency, explainability, confidentiality, and governance are now central to the conversation. The focus is shifting from whether AI may be used to how it can be used responsibly, without undermining due process or trust in the arbitral process.

Below are the most important AI-in-arbitration trends practitioners should have on their radar in 2026.

As AI becomes woven into the fabric of legal practice, international arbitration must shift focus from if to how we adopt it—and crucially, under what framework.

Enter Constitutional AI.

Today, I want to briefly explore a quieter, more psychological dimension of the rise of AI in judicial systems — specifically, how the human mind responds to algorithms that can now summarize vast amounts of data faster, and in many cases more coherently, than we can.

Held on 10 June 2025 at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the AAA–ICDR’s Future Dispute Resolution Conference brought together global experts in arbitration, mediation, and legal tech. The event explored how Artificial Intelligence (AI)* and emerging technologies are transforming international dispute resolution. Across five sessions, speakers discussed new tools, ethical frameworks, and evolving practices that are reshaping how disputes are handled.

Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) are no longer fringe experiments. From crypto-native collectives to community-governed platforms, DAOs are reshaping how groups organize, fund, and govern themselves. But as these novel structures evolve, the legalframeworks surrounding them struggle to keep up.