The topic, “International Settlement of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Dispute”, purely and apart from introduction and definition is categorized into three distinguished parts.Analyzing the historical origin of dispute settlement in INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY and its developments is the aim of the first chapter. Precedent survey, i.e. to search for conventions and other international documents generating the right of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, is the focal point of the second chapter. And the last chapter as the major part of the essay is dedicated to scrutinize dispute settlement procedures in related international documents. In this chapter, the author, referring to Traditional dispute settlement procedures, has focused on Special procedures of WTO’s settlement system as the most imperative dispute settlement procedure of today’s world as a current dominant procedure which applies to one hundred and forty six WTO’s state parties and has concluded that, in future, there will not probably be any International INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Dispute, beyond the WTO’s compulsory jurisdiction taking into account the affirmative regulations of the TRIPs agreement.  

The development of international trade law in the field of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY results in the international DISPUTES. Also INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY is being breached in non-contractual relationship. These facts cause DISPUTES the subject and parties of which are related to different countries. For example a trademark has been registered in Iran, is being used illegally on goods produced in Germany that are distributed in France. Which court is competent in this case? There is no international treaty on this subject. So the extraction of rules should be done based on different documents relating to the other subjects. National rules are often tacit or synoptic. Defendant’, s domicile/residence, the place of registration and the place of harmful act are the most important grounds of jurisdiction in IP DISPUTES.

The development of international transactions and the commercial exploitation of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY has increased the necessity of creating dispute resolution methods in the field of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY in accordance with international requirements. The parties to the dispute are looking for efficient, flexible, and low-cost dispute resolution mechanisms that will not disrupt their business relations. This is despite the fact that INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES often lead to long and expensive lawsuits due to the territorial nature, diversity of rights, and technical complexities that result from the integration of different fields such as artificial intelligence with other fields, which is not favorable for the courts and litigants. Therefore, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY rights holders have turned to methods that are more under the control and management of the disputing parties to resolve DISPUTES. The special features of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY rights and its lawsuits, such as territoriality, the specialization of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY issues, conflicts in the jurisdiction of courts, widespread violations in different jurisdictions, the importance of confidentiality, the length of the process, and the huge costs of international proceedings. The lack of an international convention on the enforcement of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY judgments is one of the most important reasons that has affected the efficiency of judicial proceedings in these cases. Non-judicial dispute resolution methods, which mainly have fewer formalities and costs and are faster, reduce many of these problems. Among the non-judicial methods, mediation has the advantage of considering the characteristics of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, and compared to other methods, it is more successful in resolving these DISPUTES. The interdisciplinary nature of most INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY claims and the need for various expertise to resolve DISPUTES and the possibility of examining complex INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY cases, especially patent claims, by technical experts in the shortest time compared to other methods and often at a much lower cost, territorial nature of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY rights and solving the problem of conflict in the jurisdiction of national and international courts and reducing the risk of issuing conflicting opinions, reducing the damage of the owner of the INTELLECTUAL work due to the urgency and speed of mediation in resolving the dispute, focusing on the mutual interests of the parties and resolving the dispute amicably and, as a result, maintaining the commercial relations of the parties in long-term contracts that sometimes cover the entire period of protection of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, the suitability of the rapid development of technology, and the rapid diffusion of INTELLECTUAL properties due to their intangible nature with the speed of dispute resolution in mediation compared to the slowness of judicial proceedings, extraordinary flexibility in the dispute resolution process and the possibility of adopting creative solutions such as concluding a license agreement, technology transfer, integration, cooperation in research and development, and agreement on the division of patent within a specific territorial area instead of being limited to the specific Judicial decisions such as revocation, financial damage, and etc. are the advantages of this method in solving INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES compared to other alternative methods. Also, privacy and confidentiality and maintaining the technical and commercial secrets of the parties, avoiding the reinterpretation of the claim in court and the risk of narrowing the claims, reducing the risk of patent invalidation, avoiding the research process, and obtaining the opinions of multiple experts due to the complexities of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY claims, especially patent lawsuits and its costs, complete control of the parties on the determination of proceedings and the absence of legal dates and deadlines, being held in a single stage and with quick results, lack of legal obligation of the parties to accept the mediator's recommendations and suggestions, and the optionality of the procedure that leads to the parties not resorting to useless tricks or objections to slow down or create obstacles in the mediation process. Another reason is the effectiveness of mediation in resolving INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES. A field research has been prepared to answer the question of what functions the mediation institution has to resolve INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES and it comes to the conclusion that mediation is effective in all aspects of the conflict, including judicial and non-judicial elements such as commercial interests, feelings, and other conditions of companions. Considering the dispute and empowering the parties, it allows them to find the right solution based on their special interests and needs. Therefore, it can be said that although dispute resolution through mediation is not considered the only appropriate method for resolving INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES, it has desirable functions and is efficient in most of these DISPUTES.

Growing involvement of INTELLECTUAL assets in today’ s international commerce has inevitably increased international DISPUTES concerning INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY rights between private parties. Given that many of such DISPUTES involve parties from different countries and INTELLECTUAL properties arising under the laws of more than one country, the parties to the dispute may find it undesirable or cumbersome to recourse to national courts. In particular, the territorial nature of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY renders these DISPUTES incapable of being resolved on an international basis. The multiplicity of litigation proceedings is susceptible to serious inconsistencies coupled with uncertainty and expense of enforcing foreign judgments in certain jurisdictions. International arbitration, as an interesting alternative to court litigation, can offer genuine advantages to settle INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES. Yet, in many legal systems, the arbitrability of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES has been far from settled. Since INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY rights are in fact monopolies granted by States and many of them must be registered with a State authority if they are to subsist, the question of whether parties can validly submit INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES to arbitration has given rise to a historical national resistance to arbitration of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES in general and registered INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES in particular. Today, national legal systems tend to take different approaches to this issue; from excluding arbitration on registered INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES together with recognizing full arbitrability of all DISPUTES concerning registered INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY rights. Nevertheless, a comparative study of modern legal systems and their developments shows that the prevailing trends are shifting toward making most INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES arbitrable.

At various stages of the arbitration process of a dispute, obstacles and objections may arise, particularly from the loser party. Defenses such as encounte an agreement or arbitration clause with public order or basically not being arbiratable under the governing laws are used as the ways to escape being defeated. Given the ambiguity of the concepts of public order and arbitrability, especially in INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY law, and the differing views of different countries on these issues, we sought to examine what is the relationship between the concept of public order and arbitrability in the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES referred to arbitration. The result was that there was a split. Some have supported the theory of conformity of public order and inarbitrability. In contrast, other writers have arguments about the fundamental difference between the two. Keywords: Arbitrability, Exclusive Jurisdiction, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES, New York Convention, Public Policy. Keywords: Arbitrability, Exclusive Jurisdiction, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES, New York Convention, Public Policy.

Exhibitions are still the best way to exchange the latest technological and commercial developments, especially innovations in INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY and identifying competitors. They have long been a platform for DISPUTES related to INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY rights, including the claims of competitors against each other. Experience has shown that in DISPUTES related to INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY rights in expositions, both dispute sides are at risk of hasty judgments. On one side, due to the short duration of the exposition, the owners of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY do not have enough time to collect documents and take action against the infringer. On the other side, due to the large audience in the exposition, any action or temporary order against the possible defendant will damage his reputation and deprive him of the marketing opportunity. So, it is necessary to adopt an appropriate approach to resolve DISPUTES to protect INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY rights by maintaining a balance between the conflicting interests of the parties to the dispute. With an analytical approach, this article has examined three dispute resolution mechanisms, i.e. judicial method, alternative dispute resolution methods (ADR), and administrative proceedings to protect INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY rights in expositions. In the end, it seems that alternative dispute resolution methods and the formation of fast-specialized investigation boards have priority over other available methods. Establishing a specialized board in the field of exhibition activity or permanently in the relevant trade unions, according to a specific statute or the arbitration clause in the contracts of participating in the exhibitions, can be a strategy for different methods of resolving INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY rights DISPUTES in exhibitions, for Iranian law. Keywords: Administrative Proceeding, Exhibition, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Rights, Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods (ADR), Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) 1. IntroductionExhibitions are one of the best situations to introduce and present goods and services where designers and manufacturers present their latest products and ideas. This is where DISPUTES regarding INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY rights (patent, industrial design, trademark, etc.) arise. Due to the limited duration of the exhibition, the claimant of violation of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY rights expects that his claim proceeds and be held in this short period so that he can prevent the violator from presenting products and taking actions that violate his rights. This quick procedure can expose both dispute parties to hasty judgments. Due to the quickness of processing and decision-making, the plaintiff may receive less support in the exhibition. Any temporary decision and order to collect the defendant's products or stop his activity in the exhibition, if it does not lead to the Issuance of a final verdict in favor of the plaintiff, can cause significant credit losses to the defendant. In the short period of the exhibition, the usual judicial approach is not enforceable due to its time-consuming nature. In addition, participants in international exhibitions, in many cases, are not aware of the laws and regulations of the host country and even face challenges in accessing a lawyer and legal advice during the short period of the exhibition. Therefore, it is necessary to adopt approaches that, by creating a balance, not only provide sufficient protection to the claimant of violation of rights but also preserve the rights of the possible defendant of the lawsuit. 2. MethodologyThe research method in this article is the descriptive-analytical method. Firstly, it studies the existing challenges in resolving DISPUTES and enforcing INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY rights in exhibitions. Then, to solve these challenges, the existing mechanisms in exhibitions are analyzed and evaluated. There are three mechanisms for resolving INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES in legal systems and various exhibitions: judicial method, alternative dispute resolution methods (ADR), and administrative proceedings. Each method has been explained in this article, and its effectiveness is evaluated based on three legal criteria, including the composition of the members handling the dispute, the issues that can be handled, and the handling procedures. Finally, according to the results obtained from this analysis, the most efficient method of dispute resolution in exhibitions is determined and suggested. 3. Results and DiscussionAccording to the findings of this article, in the judicial way of dealing with INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES in exhibitions, considering the short time of holding the exhibition and the time-consuming nature of the judicial proceedings, issuing a temporary restraining order is the most efficient tool to confront the violation of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY rights. Issuance of this order makes the main request of the plaintiff, which is the banning of the defendant's presence in the exhibition, to be realized. And since the temporary restraining order (TRO) is issued without hearing the defendant's statements, it can irreparably damage his rights. Therefore, nowadays, the courts are stricter in meeting the condition of "immediate and irreparable damage to the claimant". To be successful in requesting the issuance of a temporary restraining order, the plaintiff must have previously collected sufficient reasons against the offender. The difficulties and inefficiency of the judicial system have made it ordinary to use alternative methods of resolving DISPUTES in exhibitions. Providing legal advice and information, as well as including the condition of observing INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY rights and determining executive guarantees for it, such as fines, dismissal, or exclusion from attending the exhibition, are some alternative methods of dispute resolution. The application of these sanctions depends on the will of the exhibition organizers. The use of ADR mechanisms to resolve DISPUTES is ordinary in many exhibitions. Methods such as initial unbiased evaluation of the result of the lawsuit, formation of a council or a case panel to deal with DISPUTES in the exhibition or the method of quick settlement of DISPUTES of the World INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Organization are some other alternative methods. Although the method of initial unbiased evaluation of the result of the lawsuit seems favorable by speed and result, the use of this method requires evaluators who have sufficient knowledge, expertise, and experience in the field of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY claims, who act impartially and based on justice and fairness and be able to gain the trust of the parties to the dispute. Many exhibitions have case committees to deal with DISPUTES, which, due to being active at the time of the exhibition and by conducting quick and specialized proceedings, provide the best way to resolve DISPUTES arising from INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY in exhibitions. The jurisdiction of some of these boards is optional and limited to the cases where the defendant accepts the board's jurisdiction. However, it seems possible to enforce the arbitrating of this board by establishing a binding regulation or including an arbitration clause in the contracts of participating in the exhibition. The solution of the Chinese legal system to protect INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY rights is a combination of judicial and administrative methods. In this country, in addition to judicial procedures, according to the PMEX document, which is binding for all exhibitions in China, DISPUTES regarding INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY in exhibitions are submitted to the complaint handling office consisting of representatives of the exhibition union and the PROPERTY rights department, and resolved by the experts of this office. In case of violation, the Department of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Rights can order to collect the products from the booths, remove related advertisements in the exhibition, confiscate the proceeds of the violation, fine the violator, or even ban them from attending exhibitions in the coming periods. The authority of this handling board can be included in all contracts of participation in exhibitions by special legislation or, in the absence of law, according to an arbitration clause, which covers all DISPUTES arising from INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY rights among all participants in the exhibition. This handling board requires a particular procedure, particularly to deal with urgent requests for a temporary restraining, as well as special mechanisms to implement the arbitration award. 4. Conclusions and Future ResearchThe best approach to protect INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY works and resolve related DISPUTES is the one that ends the dispute in the shortest possible time by creating a balance between the parties' rights and without disturbing the exhibition. The most important advantage of the ADR mechanism is the speed of the settlement through the reduction of formalities. In this method, all aspects of the procedure are flexible. The composition of members is not necessarily fixed and can change for each case. Judges act independently in the proceedings and are not dependent on the government authorities of the exhibition venue. To maintain impartiality in proceedings, especially in international exhibitions, judges are usually chosen from different nationalities. However, in the administrative dispute resolution mechanism, the arbitrators are all government administrative officials, and this issue can hurt the trust of the foreign parties in the dispute. In general, it seems that the best way to resolve DISPUTES and enforce INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY rights in exhibitions is the establishment of a specialized board during the activity period of each exhibition or permanently in the relevant trade organizations. This can deal with and make decisions regarding INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES in the exhibition in a specialized manner, quickly and without formalities. It should also be noted that the limits of competence and authority of the handling authorities should be limited to decisions and urgent matters, and in general, it should not harm the possibility of the defendant's defense and subsequent actions to achieve the right through public judicial authorities.

Development of technology and communications, especially emergence of the internet as well as states’ inclination to achieve a harmonized protection of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY rights in international level in the last three decades, have brought a new perspectives on international jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in the field of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY rights. The most important international document covering relation between private international law and INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY law is Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005. Despite the significance of the topic in international arena, the Iranian legislation lacks jurisdictional provisions with respect to INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES. This article attempts to highlight positive consequences of Iran’ s membership in the Convention, discussing the drafting history of the Convention and analyzing its provisions regarding jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement in INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES.

The WIPO and TRIPS have special manners for the settlement of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES. The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, settles such DISPUTES by Alternative Dispute Resolution Manners (ADR). On the basis of WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of DISPUTES, such DISPUTES will be settled by quasi-judicial manners. In this Article, we study privileges and defects, preferred manners and analyze possibility or impossibility of resorting to both mechanisms, in order to achieve a satisfactory settlement of DISPUTES relating to INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY matters.

This paper is based on a research to evaluate the Iranian INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY System (TIPS) and its role in technology development at national level. First, the major functions of IIPS and its transactions with the Iranian National Innovation System (NIS) are examined. Then, IIPS is benchmarked against the IP systems in Japan, South Korea and China. Finally, a set of policy recommendations is suggested for the effectively improvement of IIPS and national Technology Policymaking in Iran.

Right of private PROPERTY is the most important individual rights of society in the heart of private law. In Islamic law protection of PROPERTY as one of the five goals of fighhe, that is, protection of sagacity, religion, generation and self, is to be stipulated. Based on article 140 of civil code, the process of PROPERTY acquisition is restricted to four cases. On the other hand, legislator has limited the causes of PROPERTY acquisition to four cases and prohibited any other acquisition out of these causes. The purpose of present article is investigating the process of PROPERTY acquisition of INTELLECTUAL works in the light of article 140 of civil code. However, at first, the value of INTELLECTUAL works will be analyzed since it is the introduction of PROPERTY acquisition of INTELLECTUAL works and the quality of private PROPERTY acquisition of INTELLECTUAL works to its creator will be separately investigated afterward.