CHANG TSI
Insights
In today's rapidly evolving internet industry, domain names have become a critical component of online branding for enterprises and individuals. Proper resolution of domain name disputes is essential for maintaining order in cyberspace and protecting the rights of stakeholders.
When a domain name registered by another party infringes upon one's prior rights, the aggrieved party may initiate a domain name dispute arbitration to either cancel the infringing domain name or transfer it to their own name. Selecting the appropriate arbitration institution is crucial for the smooth resolution of such cases. The Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC), authorized by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), is one of six globally recognized domain name dispute resolution institutions. The ADNDRC includes the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) and the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), both of which provide services for resolving disputes related to country-code and generic top-level domains.
As IP lawyers in China, we often encounter domain name disputes and typically need to choose between HKIAC (Hong Kong) and CIETAC (Beijing) for arbitration. Drawing on years of experience in handling domain name arbitration cases, Chang Tsi & Partners will analyze the distinct features and strengths of HKIAC and CIETAC in domain name arbitration services to guide IP practitioners in selecting an arbitration institution.
The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) and the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) have distinct jurisdictions in domain name disputes.
HKIAC’s jurisdiction covers a broad range of domain names, including generic top-level domains (gTLDs) and country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs) such as .cn, .hk, and .ph. This makes it particularly well-suited for resolving disputes involving Hong Kong’s .hk domains and the Philippines’ .ph domains, where its geographic and legal expertise provides a significant advantage.
In contrast, CIETAC focuses primarily on gTLDs and China’s .cn ccTLDs. Its specialized focus on .cn domains has established it as an authoritative institution in this area, with a strong track record of handling such cases.
In 2024, HKIAC handled 143 domain name cases, while CIETAC handled 111. While HKIAC processed slightly more cases overall, given the scope of their jurisdictions, CIETAC has more experience and credibility in handling .cn domain disputes, as it focuses more on such cases.
HKIAC maintains a robust panel of 109 domain name arbitration experts, many of whom are proficient in multiple languages. This multilingual capability is particularly advantageous for resolving disputes involving non-English or non-Chinese languages, such as French, Spanish, or Portuguese. For example, in cases where evidence or domain registration agreements are in a third language, HKIAC’s experts can ensure accurate interpretation and fair adjudication.
CIETAC, on the other hand, lists 100 experts in its domain name arbitration panel. However, only five of these experts explicitly specialize in domain names, and only one of these experts is proficient in additional languages (Persian and Russian). Its limited language expertise could pose challenges in complex disputes requiring multilingual support.
As mentioned earlier, both arbitration centers can handle cases involving generic top-level domains and the .cn country-code top-level domain. The language of generic top-level domain cases should same as the language of the domain registration agreement. This means some cases need to be handled in languages like French, Spanish, or Portuguese, which are challenging for CIETAC's experts. So, before filing a complaint for a generic top-level domain, check the language of the domain registration agreement. If it's not Chinese or English, it's better to complain to HKIAC, which has more multilingual experts. For .cn domain cases, the language is always Chinese, so there's almost no language-related trouble.
Additionally, in some cases, the evidence we need to submit may involve a third language. In practice, we generally request the secretariat to appoint neutral experts who can accommodate both parties' official languages and the language of key evidence. This ensures a correct understanding of both parties' statements and evidence. From the above situation, it can be seen that HKIAC is better able to meet this requirement.
HKIAC’s approach to domain name arbitration is heavily influenced by common law traditions. Even in cases involving .cn domains, its panels frequently reference precedents, including those from HKIAC itself and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). This precedent-based approach allows complainants to strengthen their arguments by citing relevant case law.
CIETAC, as an institution rooted in the civil law tradition, focuses more on statutory interpretations. Its panels often reference the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) alongside supplementary laws such as China’s Civil Code and Trademark Law. This emphasis on legal statutes ensures that decisions are grounded in clear regulatory frameworks.
Complainants may prefer HKIAC if they can identify favorable precedents to support their claims, while CIETAC may be more suitable for those who prioritize statutory interpretations and rule-based reasoning.
HKIAC adheres strictly to a formal review principle. Complaints are accepted once basic information is submitted, enabling quick initiation of arbitration proceedings. This streamlined approach is advantageous for parties seeking to expedite the resolution process.
CIETAC, however, conducts substantive reviews of complaints, assessing the genuineness of claims. While this ensures procedural rigor and prevents frivolous complaints, it may require additional preparatory work from complainants. This thorough review process helps maintain the integrity of the arbitration system by safeguarding the rights of respondents.
According to the rules, if the respondent does not file an objection, the case typically lasts around 45 days. Per the recent experience from our Chang Tsi team shows that HKIAC usually acknowledges receipt of the complaint by email the next day, and most cases receive an award within about 35 days. Throughout the case process, the secretariat strictly adheres to the procedural timelines. Therefore, if speed is a priority, it is more advantageous to file a complaint with the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC).
CIETAC reported an average case resolution time of 41 days in 2024. However, our past experience indicates that CIETAC experts focus more on substantive reviews of cases. When dealing with complex or difficult cases, they often take longer to issue rulings, sometimes extending the timeline to 3–5 months. This thoroughness ensures fair outcomes but may delay the resolution of time-sensitive disputes.
We have compiled a comparison table for your reference.
In summary, selecting the right domain name arbitration institution requires careful consideration of several factors, including the type of disputed domain, case complexity, language requirements, expert resources, and decision-making styles.
HKIAC offers a multilingual edge, precedent-based reasoning, and expedited proceedings, making it well-suited for international disputes involving gTLDs or non-Chinese languages. CIETAC, meanwhile, excels in handling .cn domain disputes with greater authority and expertise, supported by its substantive review process and rule-based approach.
Parties should weigh these factors based on their specific needs. For instance, those prioritizing speed and multilingual support may lean toward HKIAC, while those dealing with .cn domains or requiring statutory interpretations may find CIETAC more appropriate. By aligning the choice of arbitration institution with the unique circumstances of the case, parties can effectively safeguard their rights and achieve optimal outcomes.
