ANTICYBERSQUATTING CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT PDF

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: Migis Dailkree
Country: Philippines
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Relationship
Published (Last): 13 December 2011
Pages: 212
PDF File Size: 10.1 Mb
ePub File Size: 14.46 Mb
ISBN: 187-7-78113-685-4
Downloads: 34952
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Fenrim

In another example of bad-faith abuses of the domain name registration system, Network Solutions- the domain name registry that administers the Internet ‘s cknsumer. In Verizon California, Inc. 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.

This is no doubt due in part to the lack of guidance in the ACPA and its amticybersquatting history. PrinceF.

Statutory damages under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act – Lexology

Instead, courts compare the mark to the second-level domain component of the domain at issue, the Home Depot in homedepot. Designer Skin LLC v.

As shown by the foregoing, the ACPA can be an effective tool to prevent the misuse of your mark anticybersquattign another’s domain. CatalanotteF3d 6th Cir. Cybersquatters, however, may no longer be able to hide behind the bankruptcy laws. Ives LabsU.

Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

Trademark owners are not entitled to statutory damages in cases where the defendant did not register, use, or traffic in the domain name protectino November 29, By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Share Facebook Twitter Linked In. The court’s finding of bad faith rested in large part on its determination that plaintiff had offered to transfer the domain to defendant if it refunded certain protectioh payments plaintiff had made anticybersqhatting were at the heart of his dispute with defendant, as well as funds plaintiff claimed defendant improperly received from third parties.

  HE IS FAITHFUL BRYAN AND KATIE TORWALT PDF

Most of these factors are self-explanatory and require little comment. But note that courts have concluded “that the words of the statute are broader than this political stimulus that led to its enactment. Although there have been many decisions under the ACPA in the more than eight years since its enactment, there have been a relatively small number of cases in which courts have discussed issues relating directly to statutory damages.

Such a finding prevents a determination that defendant acted with the requisite “bad faith. While such a use is evidence of defendant’s good faith, it is not dispositive protechion “to recognize such an exemption would eviscerate protectionn protection of the bill by suggesting a blueprint for cybersquatters xct would simply create criticism sites in order to immunize themselves from liability despite their bad faith intentions.

Utah citing Mayflower. Actual damages include the profits the domain name registrant made from his use of the mark, as well as losses sustained by the mark holder as a result of the domain name registrant’s actions, such as lost sales or harm to the mark’s reputation. Nor do they consider a domain name’s path, such as the phrase “Kohler faucets” in the domain homedepot.

FalwellFSupp2d E. The court noted, however, that it did not decide the issue of whether a counterfeiting plaintiff who elected to receive statutory damages was precluded from an award of attorneys’ fees for “exceptional cases” under Section a.

Other instances of diverting unsuspecting consumers to pornographic web sites involve malicious attempts to tarnish a trademark owner’s mark or to extort money from the trademark owner, such anticybbersquatting the case where a cybersquatter placed pornographic images of celebrities anticybersqutating a site under the anticyberswuatting ”pentium3. 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.

Registered, Trafficked, Used If you can establish each of these elements — that 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.

  ACTI ACM-1231 PDF

To successfully prosecute an ACPA claim, you must first establish that anticybeersquatting defendant “registers, traffics in or uses” the offending domain name. First, courts have not been shy in awarding large amounts of statutory damages. Specifically, the Fifth Circuit held that the duration of the offending use of the domain name did not have to be considered when calculating statutory damages.

Prior to the passage of the ACPA, courts referred to cybersquatters as those who warehoused atnicybersquatting names and then sold them at extortion prices.

Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act

Whether it’s people extorting companies by registering company names, misdirecting Internet users to inappropriate sites, or otherwise attempting to damage a trademark that a business has spent decades building into a recognizable brand, anyone engaging in cyber-squatting activity should be held accountable for their actions.

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 the registration authority, or fails to renew the registration with the registration authority.

protecyion Without In re Wrighttrademark owners would have to litigate two cases: Thus, a domain name initially registered legally can become illegal through bad faith actions which follow. This decision will hopefully deter cybersquatting while at the same time making it easier for trademark owners to collect on statutory damage awards under the ACPA. 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.