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):||20 November 2009|
|PDF File Size:||17.64 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.29 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Existing legal remedies were insufficient to respond to the problem of cybersquatting. All articles with dead external links Articles with dead external links from October Articles with permanently dead external links.
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
Languages Italiano Polski Edit links. 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. Instead, courts compare the mark to the second-level domain component of the domain at issue, the Home Depot in homedepot.
As long as the domain name is dropped within five days, the cybersquatter will recover all of his initial registration costs under current rates. The ACPA renders one liable to the owner of a trademark who, with “a bad faith intent to profit from that mark,” “registers, traffics in or uses a domain name” that is either identical or confusingly anticybersquattong to a “distinctive” mark or is identical, confusingly similar or dilutive of a “famous mark.
Congress viewed the legal remedies available for trademark owners before the passage of the ACPA as “expensive and uncertain. Statutory Damages and Cybersquatting Duration The Fifth Circuit has provided some guidance cknsumer awarding statutory damages in relation to the duration of the cybersquatting. 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.
The Committee also heard testimony that Warner Bros.
The chart published at the end of this article is a survey of the 32 cases awarding statutory damages that the authors have located. Hunn, Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act: The authors are aware of only one case that has found an ACPA violation but refused to award statutory damages for substantive reasons. 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.
Cybersquatters register famous trademarks in bulk, but in most cases, do not post an active Web site.
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. Designer Skin LLC v. The ACPA has been effectively used to combat a number of wrongs. 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.
Utah citing Mayflower.
Cybertelecom :: ACPA
The ACPA has also been used 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. Registration of multiple domain names containing marks owned anricybersquatting third parties also evidences bad faith.
For example, the Committee heard testimony regarding a cybersquatter who registered the domain name s ”attphonecard. The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act “ACPA” applies to any person who “registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name” that is identical or confusingly similar to a distinctive mark, or that is dilutive of a famous mark, and who “has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark.
As anticybdrsquatting by the foregoing, the ACPA can be an effective tool to prevent the misuse of your mark in another’s domain. The statute enumerates two final factors courts may consider in determining defendant’s motivation.
Moreover, a few trends are discernible. To successfully prosecute an ACPA claim, you must first establish that the defendant “registers, traffics in or uses” the offending domain name. CatalanotteF3d 6th Cir. Ives LabsU. The ACPA does not prevent the fair use of trademarks or any use protected by the First Amendmentwhich includes gripe sites.
Others attempt to divert unsuspecting consumers to their sites in order to engage in unfair competition.
This page was last edited on 18 Decemberat In determining whether a particular domain name was registered or used in good faith, the use made of the domain name prior to the commencement of the parties’ dispute is particularly important. 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.
In rem proceedings can be commenced in a judicial district “in which the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority that protectikn or assigned the domain name [at issue] is located. To proceed in rem, the mark holder must demonstrate that he cannot establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The Pdotection protects both registered and unregistered common-law marks.
Reverse domain hijacking Cybersquatting Domain name drop list Domain name speculation Domain sniping Domain parking Domain tasting Domain name warehousing Doppelganger domain Type-in traffic Typosquatting Domain name front running.
The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act: Developments Through Its First Six Years
Domaining is the business of registering a domain name and parking it or placing pay-per-click ads on it. Relief can still be obtained under the ACPA’s in rem provisions. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. Most of these factors are self-explanatory and require little comment.
AntiCybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. 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. Conclusion Although the ACPA was enacted more than eight years ago, and the registration of domain names worldwide has exploded, we still have relatively little insight into how courts determine a particular amount of statutory damages.