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):||16 February 2016|
|PDF File Size:||16.51 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.43 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
See, Panavision Int’l, L.
Registration of multiple domain names containing marks owned by third parties also evidences bad faith. Others attempt to divert unsuspecting consumers to their sites in order to engage in unfair competition. The Clnsumer Consumer Protection Act: 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.
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
Share Facebook Twitter Linked In. The ACPA has been effectively used to combat a number of wrongs. Online consumers have a difficult time distinguishing a genuine site from a pirate site, anicybersquatting that often the only indications of source and authenticity of the consuumer, or the goods and services made protectioon thereon, are the graphical interface on the site itself and the Internet address at which it resides.
Three of these factors focus on potential legitimate uses by the defendant of the domain, the presence of which support a finding that defendant did not act in bad faith. In Verizon California, Inc. If you can establish each of these elements — that the defendant registered, consuer 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.
If a violation of the ACPA is found, a court can “order the forfeiture or cancellation of the [offending] domain name or [its] transfer.
On-line extortion in any form is unacceptable and outrageous. Some register well-known brand names as Anticybdrsquatting 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.
But note that courts have concluded “that the words of the statute are broader than this political stimulus that led to its enactment. But what if the domain registrant has provided false contact information, preventing you from knowing who to sue? This decision will hopefully deter cybersquatting while anticybersqutting the same time making it easier for trademark owners to collect on statutory damage awards under the ACPA.
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
Such a finding prevents a determination that defendant acted with the requisite “bad faith. And there have been an even smaller number of cases in which courts have awarded statutory damages. 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 the ACPA.
Otherwise, every cybersquatter would solemnly aver that its conduct was lawful. This is no doubt due in part to the lack of guidance in the ACPA and its legislative history.
The final factor is whether defendant is making a “bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark on a site accessible under the domain name. The UDRP allows a trademark owner to challenge domain name registrations in expedited administrative proceedings. Or what if the registrant resides outside of the United States?
Cybertelecom :: ACPA
Similarly, the domain name address ”wwwcarpoint. Consequently, trademark owners are forced to engage in a continual monitoring program–waiting to see if the cybersquatter begins to use their domain name, offers it for sale to the public, provides legitimate contact information to consuemr registration authority, or fails to renew the registration with the registration authority.
The ACPA is not the only trademark cause of action providing for statutory damages that does not give courts meaningful guidance in determining statutory damages. Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service. 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. Trademark owners should be able to rely on Gallo to support a claim of statutory damages even for tasted names registered for only a few days.
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.
CatalanotteF3d 6th Cir. As noted above, the Lanham Act provides that courts may award attorneys’ fees for violations of the ACPA in “exceptional cases” under Section a. As long as the domain name is dropped within five days, the cybersquatter will recover all of his initial registration costs under current rates. Thus, a domain name initially registered legally can become illegal through bad faith actions which follow.
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act Law and Legal Definition
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. As a result, consumers have come to rely heavily on familiar brand names when engaging in online commerce.
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. The ACPA does not provide courts with any guidelines or criteria for determining when statutory damages are to be awarded, or how much should be awarded, other than the award should be “as the court considers just.
While such a use is evidence of defendant’s good faith, it is not dispositive as “to recognize such an exemption would eviscerate the protection of the bill by suggesting a blueprint for cybersquatters who would simply create criticism sites in order to immunize themselves from liability despite their bad faith intentions.