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.

Author: Meztilmaran Mezilkis
Country: Costa Rica
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Travel
Published (Last): 13 August 2009
Pages: 238
PDF File Size: 19.24 Mb
ePub File Size: 10.63 Mb
ISBN: 249-6-94358-790-9
Downloads: 78282
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Maurr

Designer Skin LLC v. 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, These individuals attempt to profit from the Consymer by reserving and later reselling or licensing domain names back to the companies that spent millions of dollars developing the goodwill of the trademark.

PrinceF. Or a Threat to Electronic Commerce?

It so held notwithstanding the extensive body of case law anticyybersquatting such liability where a registrar is shown to have acted outside the normal ministerial bounds of domain registration. 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.

The ACPA has been effectively used to combat a number of wrongs. These include “cybersquatting,” which occurs when a registrant obtains a domain name containing another’s mark and offers to sell it to the mark holder for a tidy sum.

What is the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999 and does it prohibit gripe sites?

Or what if the registrant resides outside of the United States? Even though cybersquatters are trafficking in domain names, trademark owners in many cases cannot sue without proof of use or an offer of sale or because in rem actions against domain names are not permitted.

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. Some domainers relied on domain tastingwhich involves placing pay-per-click ads on the domain for five days or less to determine whether the ads will make more than the annual cost of the domain. Click here to view table.


Switching after a dispute arises from an illegitimate to legitimate use will not cure the original bad faith registration.

Hunn, Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act: For example, the business operating under the anticybersquattimg name ”disneytransportation. Retrieved Oct 1, Protectipn Although the ACPA was enacted more antiycbersquatting eight years ago, and the registration of domain names worldwide has exploded, consuemr still have relatively little insight into how courts determine a particular amount of statutory damages. Gallo Winery, owners of the “Ernest and Julio Gallo” mark, to obtain from defendants the domain name ernestandjuliogallo.

There are also antcybersquatting cases where there is no one to initiate legal action against because cybersquatters have given false or misleading contact information to the registration authority. Reverse domain hijacking Cybersquatting Domain name drop list Domain name speculation Domain sniping Domain parking Domain tasting Domain protdction warehousing Doppelganger domain Type-in traffic Typosquatting Domain name front running.

Specifically, Congress noted that with the development of case law extending infringement and dilution actions to include domain name violations, cybersquatters had become increasingly clever in their tactics.

This page was last edited on 18 Decemberat As noted above, the Lanham Act provides that courts may award attorneys’ fees for violations of the ACPA in “exceptional cases” under Section a. Thus, a domain name initially registered anticybersquztting can become illegal through bad faith actions which follow. Courts regularly find “typo” domains — domain names that misspell the owner’s mark — to be confusingly similar and thus to trigger liability under the ACPA. This can be done where the domain name registrant resides in a foreign country.

The Committee also heard testimony that Warner Bros. In the earliest case to do so, the Fifth Circuit held that the purpose of the ACPA’s statutory damages provision is similar to the statutory damages provision in the Copyright Act, which was intended not only to compensate the rights owner, but also to discourage wrongful conduct.

A review of the cases in which courts have awarded statutory damages, however, shows that the courts have identified or discussed a wide variety of factors that play a role in determining the amount of statutory damages they awarded under coneumer ACPA.


Others attempt to divert unsuspecting consumers to their sites in anticyberzquatting to engage in unfair competition. Ives LabsU.

Only “the domain name registrant or that registrant’s authorized licensee” can be held liable for such “use. The courts in these cases awarded statutory damages after a trial 4contested motion for summary judgment 10unopposed motion 2and default judgment The practice of cybersquatting harms consumers, electronic commerceand the goodwill equity of valuable U.

Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act – Wikipedia

Congress viewed the legal remedies available for trademark owners before the passage of the ACPA as “expensive and uncertain.

As observed by the U.

In that particular case, the defendant registered intermatic. The monetary remedies discussed above are all available in ACPA actions against domain name registrants over whom a court has established personal jurisdiction. 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. Cybersquatters, however, may no longer be able to hide behind the bankruptcy laws.

AntiCybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. In other words, there are no laws in any jurisdiction, national or otherwise, that explicitly prohibit the practice.

We also heard the account of a cybersquatter purporting to sell Dell Computer products under the name ”dellspares. The ACPA renders one liable to the owner of a trademark who, with “a bad faith intent to profit from that mark,” naticybersquatting, traffics in or uses a domain name” that is either identical or confusingly similar to a “distinctive” mark or is identical, confusingly similar or dilutive of a “famous mark. But note that courts have concluded “that the words of the statute are broader than this political stimulus that led to its enactment.

FalwellFSupp2d E.

Author: admin