What is the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of and does it prohibit The act provides a cause of action to a trademark holder when someone. What is cybersquatting? Cybersquatting is the act of purchasing a domain name that uses the names of existing businesses, which are usually trademarked. The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”)’ provides a cause of action for trademark owners against cybersquatters2, who regis- ter domain.
|Published (Last):||25 March 2011|
|PDF File Size:||4.25 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.16 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
To hold that all such individuals may qualify for the safe harbor would frustrate Congress’ purpose by artificially limiting the statute’s reach. Second, several courts have expressly recognized the importance of the deterrent effect of statutory damages, which should help in situations where cybersquatters own or use domain names for only a short time, even cybersquatters who monetize domain names with click-through advertising for just a few days.
Names or Nicknames Similarly, individuals whose name or nickname are identical to a company’s mark have been held to have legitimate claims on a domain containing that mark.
Evidence of such registrations can be obtained by performing a reverse “who is” search. As shown above, the ACPA is a useful weapon against those who improperly register a domain containing your mark. But note anticybersauatting courts have anticybersquating “that the words of the statute are broader than this political stimulus that led to its enactment. This is no doubt due in part to the lack of guidance in the ACPA and its legislative history.
We are here today to hear evidence on a new form of high- tech fraud that is causing confusion and inconvenience for consumers, increasing costs for people doing business on the Internet, and posting substantial threat to a century of pre- Internet American business efforts.
Statutory damages under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act – Lexology
For example, the business operating under the domain name ”disneytransportation. The Gallo decision could be an important weapon in trademark owners’ escalating battles with domain tasters, i. For example, when Mobil and Exxon announced their proposed merger in December,a speculator registered every variation of the possible resulting domain namei.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit “registering a famous trademark as a domain name and then offering it for sale to the trademark owner is exactly the wrong Congress intended to remedy when it passed the ACPA. See, Panavision Int’l, L. Registration of multiple domain names containing marks owned by third parties also evidences bad faith. This can be done where the domain name registrant resides in a foreign country. Several courts have also looked to copyright case law in determining statutory damages under the ACPA.
Courts thus routinely look to offers by the defendant to sell the domain name as evidence of his bad faith.
Switching uses after registration antixybersquatting a legitimate to illegitimate use can, however, evidence the requisite bad faith necessary to trigger ACPA liability. Domaining is the business of registering a domain name and parking it or placing pay-per-click ads on it. To view all formatting for this article eg, tables, footnotesplease access the original here. The first is the relative strength of the mark at issue.
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act – Wikipedia
Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service. To proceed in rem, the mark holder must demonstrate that he cannot establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The actual amount awarded is fixed by the court in its discretion. Prior to the passage of the ACPA, courts referred to cybersquatters as those who warehoused domain names and then sold them at extortion prices.
I get a few of these and this one is by far the most helpful. Click here to view table. It thus remains to be seen whether: Switching after a dispute arises from an illegitimate to legitimate use will not cure the original bad faith registration. The courts in these cases awarded statutory damages after a trial 4contested anticybersqjatting for summary judgment 10unopposed motion 2and default judgment As a anticyberwquatting, consumers have come to rely heavily on familiar brand names when engaging in online commerce.
Utah citing Mayflower.
What is the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999 and does it prohibit gripe sites?
The final element you need to establish is the most difficult to demonstrate, namely the motivation for defendant’s conduct. Or a Threat to Electronic Commerce? For example, several years adt a small Canadian company with a single shareholder and a couple of dozen domain name s demanded that Umbro International, Inc. Further Duplication without permission is prohibited.
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
In one case involving domain names, the plaintiff observed, and the court agreed, that “some of the domain names at issue have registrants whose identities and addresses are unknown and against who in personam proceedings might be fruitless. The ACPA has also been successfully used to prevent the tarnishment of a mark by its use in the domain of a Web site containing pornographic or other materials with which the mark holder does not wish his mark associated.
The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act: PrinceF. The defendant, in addition to this domain registration, also had registered approximately other domain names, many based on trademarks of well-known businesses, including deltaairlines.
Next, you must establish that the domain name is “identical or confusingly similar” to a “distinctive” mark, or identical, confusingly similar or dilutive of a “famous” mark. Alternatively, for registrants whose identity is unknown, the mark holder must establish that he cannot locate the defendant both by sending notice to the address listed with the domain registrar, and by publishing notice of the lawsuit as directed by the court.
Infringement was easily circumvented by either not linking a web site to the domain name or by posting a site that was unrelated to the trademark owner’s business.
The practice of cybersquatting harms consumers, electronic commerceand the goodwill equity of valuable U. Cybersquatters, however, may no longer be able to hide behind the bankruptcy laws. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit recently held that an election to recover statutory damages for trademark counterfeiting under Section c foreclosed the award of attorneys’ fees under Section b.
See Sporty’s Farm L. Zuccarini, F3d 3d Cir. The ACPA has been effectively used to combat a number of wrongs. The ACPA has also been consmuer to prevent domain registrants from improperly profiting from the commercial use of another’s mark, such as by selling or displaying ads for products that compete with those of the mark holder at a domain containing the mark.
Domain name tasting, http: