Abstract:
IP conflicts were formerly thought to be non-arbitrable meaning they can’t be resolved through
arbitration as Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are considered exclusive property rights granted
by sovereign governments that represent a specific balance of public interest. However, with the
development of international trade and the need for efficient and effective resolution of IP disputes
has become increasingly making them arbitrable. The objective of this research is to examine the
legal framework governing the arbitration of IP disputes in Ethiopia compared to the legal
framework of Switzerland, Hong Kong, Singapore, Nigeria, and explore the gaps in the Ethiopian
legal framework, and make recommendations based on comparative analysis. The research
employed a qualitative doctrinal legal research methodology to examine the arbitration of IP
disputes in Ethiopia in comparison with stated countries' legal frameworks by analyzing data
collected from primary and secondary sources through comparative thematic analysis. The finding
of the research indicates that effective IP dispute arbitration requires a comprehensive legal
framework on IP arbitration recognizing arbitrability, the scope of arbitrability, and the effects of
the arbitral award, However, Ethiopia's legal framework lacks a comprehensive legal framework
compared to the jurisdictions stated. To address this gap, the research recommends the enactment
of a comprehensive legal framework for the arbitration of IP disputes that explicitly states the
arbitrability of IP disputes, the scope of arbitrable disputes, and the effect of arbitrable awards
