Tag Archives: Dispute Resolution

Revised Rules of Dispute Resolution Committee of the Intellectual Property Office of Mongolia come into force (part 1)



Posted by , ,

In 2018 the Government of Mongolia has adopted a new revised structure of government agencies, pursuant to which General Authority for Intellectual property and State registration has divided into two separate agencies, General Authority for State registration and Intellectual Property Office of Mongolia, with their own separate functions. Due to this division Intellectual Property Office of Mongolia (IPOM) has started to renew its internal structure and some rules and regulations, in particular Rules of Dispute Resolution Committee. In connection with this, activities of Dispute Resolution Committee of IPOM have been suspended sine die.

On February 13th, 2019 by the order of the Minister of Justice and Home affairs No. A/26 a revised Rules of Dispute Resolution Committee (Committee) of IPOM was adopted and new members of the Committee were appointed. In this article we will highlight main differences between old and new Rules of the Committee and new additions to the Rules.

Pursuant to old Rules chairman and secretary of the Committee were appointed by the Head of IPOM, and members of the Committee were appointed every time when a decision to initiate a dispute resolution case was carried out. And number of members to be appointed were not specified. Pursuant to new Rules the Committee is a non-permanent division and will consist of 11 regular members. By the order of the Minister of Justice and Home affairs No. A/26 dated February 13th, 2019 regular members of the Committee were appointed, and the Committee consists of chairman, secretary and 9 members. The Committee is distinctive because it now includes not only IPOM specialists and inspectors, but also specialist from Ministry of Justice and Home affairs, law school professor and IPOM researcher.

Under new Rules the Committee shall not accept and resolve disputes regarding claims for incurred damages and claims of compensation (payment) for using protected invention as specified in paragraph 28.1 of Article 28 of Law on Patents. Whereas under old Rules the Committee did not resolve requests to recognize the trademark is a well-known trademark, as specified in paragraph 32.1.4 of Article 32 of Law on Trademarks and Geographical indications, now under new Rules it is possible to submit such requests to the Committee.

Under old Rules requests and complaints were submitted in writing to the Committee, and chairman of the Committee carried out a decision whether to initiate a dispute resolution case or not within 14 days from date of submission. Pursuant to new Rules requests and complaints are submitted in writing to chairman of the Committee. Chairman of the Committee shall transfer requests and complaints to one of the members of the Committee for review within 5 business days from date of submission. The member of the Committee shall review and present his/her suggestions and comments to chairman of the Committee within 10 business days from date of receipt. Chairman of the Committee based on suggestions and comments of the member of the Committee shall carry out a decision whether to initiate a dispute resolution case or not.

Before, dispute resolution cases were resolved within 6 months as specified in Law on Patents and Law on Trademarks and Geographical indications, whereas now this period has significantly shortened. New Rules provide for that dispute resolution cases must be resolved within 30 days from date of decision to initiate a case is carried out, and if additional procedures and measures are necessary then this period may be extended once for up to 30 days by chairman of the Committee.

Alternative Dispute Resolution: Finalizing Mediation



Posted by , ,

In a recent post we have previously discussed the practical aspects of mediation in Mongolia. Mediation is one of the better alternative dispute resolution methods for those who are seeking short-term and inexpensive way to settle a dispute. In this article we’ll explore the closing of the mediation process and aftermath.

The mediation process is generally considered more prompt, inexpensive, and procedurally simple than formal litigation. It allows the parties to focus on the underlying circumstances that contributed to the dispute, rather than on narrow legal issues. The mediation process does not focus on truth or fault. Questions of which party is right or wrong are generally less important than the issue of how the problem can be resolved. Disputing parties who are seeking vindication of their rights or a determination of fault will not likely be satisfied with the mediation process.

Nonetheless, if in the mediation process a resolution is reached between parties, a written settlement agreement must be executed. Such settlement agreement is binding for all parties of dispute and considered enforceable contract. As mentioned in our previous post mediation centers operate at courts of first instance (court-based mediation centers), and may operate at government authorities, NGOs and professional associations (other mediation centers). Settlement agreements executed by mediators of a court-based mediation center become a sort of court judgement, as judge of corresponding court issues a court decision confirming such settlement agreement. And if parties fail to voluntarily perform their obligation under settlement agreement, it shall be enforced same as court decision. On the other hand, while settlement agreements executed by mediators of other mediation center are also binding for parties of dispute, these are not enforced same as settlement agreements executed by mediator of court-based mediation center. If parties fail to voluntarily perform their obligations under such settlement agreement, parties have the right to pursue their claims in other forms (such as litigation or arbitration).

However, if in the mediation process parties could not reach any resolution, or parties did not actively seek any resolution, or for other reasons the mediation process could not further proceed, the mediation process shall be terminated. At this point parties of dispute may decide to resolve their dispute through litigation or arbitration.

Alternative Dispute Resolution: Mongolian Approach to Mediation



Posted by , ,

Mediation a method of alternative dispute resolution parties to any agreement should consider, aside from arbitration. Mediation is essentially a negotiation facilitated by a neutral third party. Unlike arbitration, which takes a form more similar to trial, mediation doesn’t involve decision making by the neutral third party, but seeks to find a mutually acceptable resolution or compromise between the parties. Mediation procedures can be initiated by the parties or may be compelled by legislation, the courts, or contractual terms. When parties are unwilling or unable to resolve a dispute, one good option is to turn to mediation. Mediation is generally a short-term, structured, task-oriented, and “hands-on” process.

In Mongolia the institution of mediation was established by adoption of the Law on Mediation in 2012. Pursuant to Law, mediation may be used in civil legal disputes, individual labor disputes and disputes arising from family relationships, and in some other disputes only if specified by law.

In mediation, the disputing parties work with a neutral third party, the mediator, to resolve their disputes. The mediator facilitates the resolution of the parties’ disputes by supervising the exchange of information and the bargaining process. The mediator helps the parties find common ground and deal with unrealistic expectations. The mediator may also offer creative solutions and assist in drafting a final settlement. The role of the mediator is to interpret concerns, relay information between the parties, frame issues, and define the problems. Unlike the litigation process or arbitration, where a neutral third party (judge or arbitrator) imposes a decision over the matter, the parties and their mediator ordinarily control the mediation process – deciding when and where the mediation takes place, who will be present, how the mediation will be paid for, and how the mediator will interact with the parties.

A mediator is a specialized person, who is certified and registered in the list of mediators. Anyone with higher education may attend training courses for mediators and become a certified and registered mediator. However, currently most certified and registered mediators are usually lawyers or persons with certain legal or economic background. Law on Mediation provides presence of mediation centers at courts of first instance. Law also permits government authorities, NGOs and professional associations to have medication centers in accordance with their direction of professional activity, provided that certified and registered mediators are employed.

Mongolia Introduces Investment Protection Council



Posted by , , , ,

We would like to introduce the Investment Protection Council (IPC), one of the effective way to protect rights and interest of the investors and to resolve the disputes involving the foreign investors in Mongolia.

The Investor Protection Council needs to be established in concern with the facilitation of investment related dispute settlement and of favorable environment for the sustainable operation of investors. The Investor Protection Council is established based on an ordinance of the Prime Minister of Mongolia in Dec 2016. That council is composed of Chairman, 16 members, and Secretary. The main formation of the Council’s operation structure should be Council’s session. The decision will be made by majority of the Council members during the session.

The IPC’s Main Roles:

  • Preview and make preliminary prognosis on foreign investment related issues that will be discussed by Cabinet Session
  • Improve investment legal framework, remove duplications and breaches of laws, introduce investment related proposal that made by relevant organizations to Cabinet.
  • Make proposals on implementation of laws and resolutions related to investment, and introduce it to Cabinet. The council should be supernumerary and the Council’s operation should be permanent.

In addition above, one of the main roles of IPC is to protect investors’ right, and solve their grievance (except the cases examined under court or arbitrage). So far 83 compliant and claims submitted by investors to this Council’s Secretariat. As we have been classifying these complaint and claims, there are 40% of them was related to mining, 20% for road, transportation, construction, manufacturing, 10% for information, communication, space technology, 10% for bank, finance, tax, 5% for land, land proprietorship, utilization, 5% for national development, planning, and remaining percentage was claims related to fair competition, as well as supervision, pressure and burden, registration, and authorization activities of the law enforcement agencies.

For example, in relation to the dispute related to the termination of the license of Mobicom Corporation with 100% – a business entity 100% owned by Japan, by the Communications Regulatory Authority, it was further discussed at the Investor Protection Council Meeting and it supported to resolve the investor’s claim. In doing so, KDDI, the Japanese investor, will make additional investments to expand Mobicom’s operations, which indeed has not been resolved over the past 10 years.

LehmanLaw Mongolia LLP suggests our clients this amicable mechanism to resolve the disputes involving them in Mongolia.

Enforcing Foreign Court Judgments and Arbitration Awards



Posted by , ,

As we work with many foreign clients engaged in a range of international businesses, one of the most comment questions asked by our clients is whether a foreign arbitral award or court decision will be enforceable in Mongolia.

Generally speaking, Mongolian courts will generally not recognize or enforce judgments rendered in a foreign state unless Mongolia has concluded a treaty with that state concerning the mutual recognition of judgments. In this case, we would have to look at the relationship between the particular state from which the court decision originated to determine if there is a treaty, however, Mongolia has ratified very few such treaties and changes are slim such court judgment will be enforceable.

So what to do? The Mongolian Enforcement Agency will generally enforce a foreign arbitration award, so long as enforcement would not violate any public policy.

Mongolia has ratified the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958, in 1994 and the courts of Mongolia will enforce an arbitral award in Mongolia provided that such award:

  • is given by an arbiter of competent jurisdiction;
  • imposes on the judgement debtor a liability to pay a liquidated sum for which the judgement has been given;
  • is final;
  • is in relation to a dispute which is commercial in nature;
  • is confirmed by a judicial order in Mongolia;
  • is not in respect of taxes, a fine or a penalty; and
  • was not obtained in a manner and is not of a kind the enforcement of which is contrary to the public policy of Mongolia;

There are a few specific circumstances under Mongolia’s Arbitration Law in which a foreign arbitration will not be enforced:

  • one of the parties to the arbitration agreement is incapacity or arbitration agreement is invalid;
  • proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings was not given to the respondent party and unable to participate to the arbitral procedure and provide the response;
  • arbitral award is not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission claim, or arbitral award is beyond the scope of the claim;
  • the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties and law of the country;
  • award is not binding or valid or suspended;
  • the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of Mongolia;
  • the recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of Mongolia.

Mongolia’s New Arbitration Law Offers More Effective Enforcement



Posted by , ,

The Previous Mongolia Arbitration Law consisted of 43 clauses while the newly revised Arbitration law consists of 52 clauses. The new Mongolia Arbitration Law is drafted to be mostly based on the previous Arbitration Law with a few key changes.

Under the new Mongolia Arbitration Law the following “Temporary Actions” may be taken to secure the implementation of an Arbitration decision:

  • Force the continuance or restoration of the status quo until dispute is resolved;
  • Parties may be compelled to not take actions which may affect arbitration proceedings and may take preventive actions to prevent further damages;
  • Take actions to protect property aa may be necessary for ensuring the enforcement of of a final arbitration award;
  • Take action to preserve evidence which is significant for the resolution of the dispute or otherwise related to the dispute.

The following conditions must be met in order to take such protective measures

  1. The request for the temporary action should be clear and enforceable;
  2. if no actions are taken, it will be impossible to compensate, in full, the damage enforceable under the principle award;
  3. The amount of the potential damage should be greater than amount of potential damage which may incur as a results of the temporary actions if taken;
  4. there is a reasonable possibility that the dispute may be resolved positively for the Party requesting the temporary action.

If the arbitration panel considers that informing one party of the request for Temporary Action submitted by the other party, the panel may do so. The party so notified will have the opportunity to provide arguments relating to the request for Temporary Action.

The arbitration panel may request the Party requested the temporary actions, to provide appropriate financial guarantee in relation to the said actions.

This is a positive change to the Arbitration Law which will give Arbitration more “teeth” and better ways to be effective at both resolving disputes and securing an appropriate compensation for a grieved party seeking redress.  Our experienced Mongolia lawyers are excited at the new options provided by this change the Arbitration Law and we are looking forward to see these Temporary Actions take effect in our own cases.

Enforcing a Foreign Arbitration Award in Mongolia



Posted by , , ,

When negotiating the terms of an investment project, Foreign banks and other investors typically opt to go with foreign arbitration rather than litigation in Mongolia. At least five international arbitration proceedings have been well publicized in Mongolia since 2000. However it remains an open question as to whether the arbitration award is worth the high costs.

In 1994, Mongolia ratified the New York Arbitration Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958. Therefore Mongolia is obliged to recognize and enforce foreign arbitration awards produced under the jurisdiction of another state party to the Convention. Mongolia’s declarations in signing the Convention, indicating that Mongolia will apply the Convention only on the basis of reciprocity and only as to commercial disputes defined by Mongolian national laws, in most cases do not create a substantial barrier to enforcement.

The Law on Arbitration of Mongolia, 2003 has been drafted in compliance with the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law. The process of enforcing the award is fairly straightforward. The creditor must first formally request enforcement of a foreign arbitration award in the territory of Mongolia. In order to do that the creditor must submit the original copy of the final award with official translation to Mongolian and a judicial order warranting the feasibility of its enforcement. When the Court Decision Enforcement Agency receives the request, an Enforcement officer who will be in charge of this procedure will be assigned to collect on the reward. From then, the enforcement of the arbitration award is treated the same as enforcement of a Mongolian court decision, the enforcement officer will take all measures necessary to collect, as allowed by the law.