Examining the Legal Framework on Arbitration of Intellectual Property Disputes in Ethiopia: A Comparative Study with Switzerland, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Nigeria

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