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.
|Country:||Saint Kitts and Nevis|
|Published (Last):||12 September 2007|
|PDF File Size:||20.60 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.4 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Such a finding prevents a determination that defendant acted with the requisite “bad faith. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit recently held that an election to recover statutory damages for trademark counterfeiting under Section c foreclosed the cknsumer of attorneys’ fees under Section b. 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.
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.
But note that courts have concluded “that the words of the statute are broader than this political stimulus that led to its enactment. Prior to the enactment of the ACPA, the first definition of cybersquatters in the federal courts was articulated by the Norther District of Illinois:.
The courts in these cases awarded statutory damages after a trial 4contested motion for summary judgment 10unopposed motion 2and default judgment For example, the Committee was informed of a parent whose child mistakenly typed in the domain name for ”dosney. As a result, consumers have come to rely heavily on familiar brand names when engaging in online commerce.
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. 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.
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 Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act: Developments Through Its First Six Years
In one case involving domain names, the plaintiff observed, and the court agreed, that “some of the domain names at issue have registrants whose identities and addresses are unknown and against who in personam proceedings might be fruitless.
Existing legal remedies were insufficient to respond to the problem of cybersquatting. In its report on the ACPA, the Senate Judiciary Committee distilled the crucial elements of bad faith to mean an ” intent to trade on the goodwill of another’s mark.
See, Juno Online Services v.
FalwellFSupp2d E. Likewise, a dilution claim could be prevented by cojsumer making initial offers of sale to the legitimate trademark owners, thus defeating the courts’ lines of precedent construing offers to sell domain names as a form of use in commerce. Antidybersquatting uses after registration from a legitimate to illegitimate use can, however, evidence the requisite bad faith necessary to trigger ACPA liability. Login Register Follow on Twitter Search.
Statutory Damages and Cybersquatting Duration The Fifth Circuit has provided some guidance on awarding statutory damages in relation to atnicybersquatting duration of the cybersquatting. 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 consuemr.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. To hold that all such individuals may qualify for the safe harbor would frustrate Congress’ purpose by artificially limiting the statute’s reach. Dispute looms over launch of.
Online consumers have a difficult time distinguishing a genuine site from a pirate site, given that often the only indications of source and authenticity of the site, or the goods and services made available thereon, are the graphical interface on the site itself and the Internet address at which it resides.
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 anticyberdquatting a distinctive or famous mark with a bad faith intent to profit therefrom — you can use the ACPA to prevent the misuse of anticybersquattng mark in another’s domain.
In addition, the ACPA has been used to combat gripe sites — Web sites critical of the mark holder set up at a domain containing his mark. To view all formatting for this article eg, tables, footnotesplease access the original here. See Sporty’s Farm L.
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
Purdy, F3d 8th Cir. 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. Designer Skin LLC v. The ACPA has been effectively used to combat a number of wrongs. For example, the business operating under the domain name ”disneytransportation. See, Panavision Int’l, L.
In the legislative history, cybersquatting is described as a “nefarious” activity, an fraudulent activity, and as a get-rich scheme. Courts, particularly those in the United States where cybersquatting is an especially pressing issue, have typically utilized traditional concepts in trademark law to provide some trademark owners with remedies for harm caused by piracy on the Internet.
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 name registration authority as part of an electronic address on the Internet. In the late s, in the cacophony of disagreement over domain names and Internet governancethere was one issue over which there was rough consensus: 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.
Unlike a typical “who is” search, which only identifies who registered a particular domain name, a reverse “who is” search allows you to find out each domain a particular individual registered. 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.
Unfortunately, some cybersquatters have read these cases carefully and have taken the necessary precautions to insulate themselves from liability. To prevail on an ACPA claim, you must show that defendant acted with “a bad faith intent to profit from [your] mark.
protecfion 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. The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act: On-line acy in any form is unacceptable and outrageous. The ACPA, however, also permits in rem actions against domain names where the plaintiff is unable to establish personal jurisdiction over, or “through due diligence was not able to find,” the registrant.
The Committee also heard testimony that Warner Bros.
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
Most of cpnsumer factors are self-explanatory and require little comment. The practice of cybersquatting harms consumers, electronic commerceand the goodwill equity of valuable U.
Porsche Cars North America, Inc. 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.