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):||17 November 2018|
|PDF File Size:||20.16 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||13.44 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Domaining is the business of registering a domain name and parking it or placing pay-per-click ads on it. In the legislative history, cybersquatting is described as a “nefarious” activity, an fraudulent activity, and as a get-rich scheme. Use of a strong well-known mark evidences bad faith. In “exceptional cases,” attorney’s fees can also be recovered. As shown above, the ACPA is a useful weapon against those who improperly register a domain containing your mark.
The domain name registrar or registry or other domain name authority is not liable for injunctive or monetary relief except in the case of bad faith or reckless disregard. The court cannot award monetary relief. If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email enquiries lexology.
A number of courts have addressed the retroactivity of the ACPA’s statutory damages provision. Please contact customerservices lexology. Online consumers have a difficult time distinguishing a genuine site from a pirate site, given that often the only indications of source and authenticity of the site, or the goods and services made available thereon, are the graphical interface on the site itself and the Internet address at which it resides.
If your mark is “famous,” you can prevail not only if the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to your mark, but also if it is “dilutive. Similarly, that defendant has made no commercial use of his domain, or the mark, is also not dispositive on this issue. Some register well-known brand names as Internet domain name s in order to extract payment from the rightful owners of the marks, who find their trademark s ”locked up” and are forced to pay for the right to engage in electronic commerce under their own brand name.
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. On-line extortion in any form is unacceptable and outrageous. The statute enumerates two final factors courts may consider in determining defendant’s motivation.
Statutory damages under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act – Lexology
Chasser, “Early cases include Intermatic, Inc. In in rem proceedings, the court’s remedial powers are limited to directing that the domain name at issue be forfeited, cancelled or transferred to the mark holder. In the cases where courts have awarded statutory damages in cybersquatting cases, they typically do not discuss in any detail their anticybersquagting for awarding statutory damages.
These individuals attempt to profit from the Internet by reserving and later reselling or licensing domain names antifybersquatting to the companies that spent millions of dollars developing the goodwill of the trademark. We also heard the account of a cybersquatter purporting to sell Dell Computer products under the name ”dellspares.
Cybersquatters register well-known brand names as Internet domain names in order to force the rightful owners of the marks to come forward and pay for the right to engage in electronic commerce under their own name. The ACPA has also been used to prevent domain registrants from improperly profiting from the commercial use of another’s mark, such anticybersquqtting by selling or displaying ads for products that compete with those of the mark holder at a domain containing the mark.
The monetary remedies discussed above are all available in Atc actions against domain name registrants over anticybersquattinh a court has established personal jurisdiction. 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.
See Sporty’s Farm L. Ives LabsU.
Statutory damages under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
In determining whether the domain name registrant has a bad faith intent to profit, a court may consider many factors, including nine that are outlined in the statute:.
Despite the problems it presents to trademark owners and consumers, cybersquatting, is not illegal per se.
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.
Thus, a domain name initially registered legally can become illegal through bad faith actions which follow. 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. Help support this site. For example, the Committee heard testimony regarding a cybersquatter who registered the domain name s ”attphonecard.
Registered, Trafficked, Used If you can establish each of these elements — consumeg the defendant registered, trafficked in or used a mark identical or confusingly similar to a distinctive or famous mark with a bad faith intent to profit therefrom — you can use the ACPA to prevent the misuse of your mark in another’s domain.
Once a trademark is registered anticybefsquatting an online identifier or domain name, the cybersquatter can engage in a variety of nefarious activities–from the relatively benign parody of a business or individual, to the obscene prank of redirecting an unsuspecting consumer to pornographic content, to the destructive worldwide slander of a centuries-old brand name.
However, neither Section a nor Section dwhich exclusively govern the monetary remedies for ACPA violations, expressly provides for any discretion in increasing statutory damages.
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act Law and Legal Definition
In that particular case, the defendant registered intermatic. The term ‘ domain name ‘ means any alphanumeric designation which is registered with or assigned by any domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority as part of an electronic address on the Internet.
To view all formatting for this article eg, tables, footnotesplease access the original here. Trademark owners are not entitled to statutory damages in cases where the defendant did not register, use, or traffic in the domain name after November 29, The court held defendants acted in bad faith because they had registered the domain as “real estate” on which they had intended to make a profit, and had registered some 2, additional domains containing the names of famous companies, cities and buildings.
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
This can be done where the domain name registrant resides in a foreign country. The same mark can legitimately be used by different concerns in different markets, or geographic areas. Cybersquatters, however, may no longer be able to hide behind wnticybersquatting bankruptcy laws.
Relief can still be obtained under the ACPA’s in rem provisions. Or a Threat to Electronic Commerce? Application of this principle allowed a defendant to defeat an ACPA claim brought by plaintiff arising out of defendant’s registration of the domain chambord.
For example, the Committee heard testimony regarding an Australian company operating on the Internet under the name ”The Best Domains,” which was offering such domain name s as ”porsche. While the ACPA contemplated the purchase of domain names for resale to trademark owners, aticybersquatting did not contemplate the more modern practice of domaining.