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):||18 July 2005|
|PDF File Size:||18.20 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||14.14 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Statutory damages under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
The anticyberqsuatting, in addition to this domain registration, also had registered approximately other domain names, many based on trademarks of well-known businesses, including deltaairlines. To successfully prosecute an ACPA claim, you must first establish that the defendant “registers, traffics in or uses” the offending domain name.
Congress viewed the legal remedies available for trademark owners before anticybersquathing passage of the ACPA as “expensive and uncertain. To hold that all such individuals may qualify for the safe harbor would frustrate Congress’ purpose by artificially limiting the statute’s reach.
Thus, a domain name initially registered legally can become illegal through bad faith actions which follow. The courts in these cases awarded statutory damages after a trial 4contested protecttion for summary judgment 10unopposed motion 2and default judgment 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 qnticybersquatting registration authority as part of an electronic address on the Internet.
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. Domain name tasting, http: Anticybersquattlng, however, may no longer be able to hide behind the bankruptcy laws. In comparing the mark to the domain name, courts do not consider the generic top-level domain component of the domain name, such as the.
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. Despite the problems it presents to trademark owners and consumers, cybersquatting, is not illegal per se.
The first is the relative strength of the mark at issue. The costs associated with these risks are increasingly burdensome as more people begin selling pharmaceuticalsfinancial services, and even groceries over the Internet.
Cybertelecom :: ACPA
Retrieved Oct 1, Kicking squatters off your domain name: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Click here to view table. Follow Please login to follow content.
Purdy, F3d 8th Cir. 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 ACPA has also been successfully used to prevent the tarnishment of a mark by its use in the domain of a Web site containing pornographic or other materials with which the mark holder does not wish his mark associated.
Nor do they consider a domain name’s path, such as the phrase “Kohler faucets” in the domain homedepot. Under the ACPA, a trademark owner may bring a cause of action against a domain name registrant who.
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act Law and Legal Definition
If a violation of the ACPA is found, a court can “order the forfeiture or cancellation of the [offending] domain name or [its] transfer. 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. Navigation Catalyst SystemsF. USA June 13 It thus remains to be seen whether: For example, it was used by E.
In Verizon California, Inc.
In determining whether the domain name registrant has a bad faith intent to profit, anticybersqyatting court may consider many factors, including nine that are outlined in the statute:. That is, provided the court does not find that the defendant “believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that the use of the domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful. PurdyF3d 8th Cir.
A number of courts have addressed the retroactivity of consumerr ACPA’s statutory damages provision. The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act: Further Duplication without permission is prohibited.
For example, several years ago a small Canadian company with a single shareholder and a couple of dozen domain name s demanded that Umbro International, Inc. PrinceF.
In another example of bad-faith abuses of the domain name registration system, Proyection Solutions- the domain name registry that administers the Internet ‘s ”. In examining the cases that have awarded statutory damages, however, the courts have based their awards on a wide range of factors. AntiCybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.