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: Nejora Bagami
Country: Suriname
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Health and Food
Published (Last): 19 May 2006
Pages: 155
PDF File Size: 12.59 Mb
ePub File Size: 15.26 Mb
ISBN: 570-2-70647-715-9
Downloads: 73517
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Brakasa

Statutory damages under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act – Lexology

The ACPA has been effectively used to combat a number of wrongs. In the earliest case to do so, the Fifth Circuit held that the purpose of the ACPA’s statutory damages provision is similar to the statutory damages provision in the Copyright Act, which was intended not only to compensate the rights owner, but also to discourage wrongful conduct. To prevail on an ACPA claim, you must show that defendant acted with “a bad faith intent to profit from [your] mark.

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. The first is the relative strength of the mark at issue.

Courts thus routinely look to offers by the defendant to sell the domain name as evidence of his bad faith.

Retrieved from ” https: PurdyF3d 8th Cir. 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.

For example, the Committee heard testimony cpnsumer a cybersquatter who registered the domain name s ”attphonecard. In rem proceedings can be commenced in a judicial district “in which the domain name registrar, domain cpnsumer registry, or other domain name authority that registered or assigned the domain name [at issue] is located.


Similarly, the domain name address ”wwwcarpoint. The statute enumerates two final factors courts may consider in determining defendant’s motivation. The practice of cybersquatting harms consumers, electronic commerceand the goodwill equity of valuable U. The court held defendants acted in bad faith because they had registered the domain as “real estate” on which they had intended to make a profit, and had registered anticybersqiatting 2, additional domains containing the names of famous companies, cities and buildings.

In examining the cases that have awarded statutory atnicybersquatting, however, the courts have based their awards on a wide range of factors. In in rem proceedings, the court’s remedial powers are limited to directing that the domain name at issue be forfeited, cancelled or transferred to the mark holder. While the ACPA contemplated the purchase of domain names for resale to trademark owners, it did not contemplate the more modern practice of domaining.

Ives LabsU. But conskmer that courts have concluded “that the words of the statute are broader than this political stimulus that led to its enactment.

This can be done where the domain name registrant resides in a foreign country.

See Sporty’s Farm L. To proceed in rem, the mark holder must demonstrate that he cannot establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant. CatalanotteF3d 6th Cir. Finally, one “traffics in” an offending domain when he transfers or receives the domain in exchange for consideration, such as via a sale, purchase, loan, pledge or license.

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. First, courts have not been prptection in awarding large amounts of statutory damages. Navigation Catalyst Systems, Inc. Chasser, “Early cases include Intermatic, Inc. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

Domain name tasting, http: Finally, many courts appear anticybeesquatting do a good job of balancing the pertinent facts and equities of a case to award an amount of statutory damages that is “just” under the circumstances. In Verizon California, Inc.


What is the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999 and does it prohibit gripe sites?

Switching after a dispute arises from an illegitimate to legitimate use will not cure the original bad faith registration. Domain name system Online advertising United States federal intellectual property legislation United States federal computing legislation Consumer protection legislation Trademark legislation in law th United States Congress. Second, several courts have expressly recognized the importance of the deterrent effect of statutory damages, which should help in situations where cybersquatters own or use domain names for only a short time, even cybersquatters who monetize domain names with click-through advertising for just a few days.

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. Existing legal remedies were insufficient to respond to the problem of cybersquatting.

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.


Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act

The costs associated with these risks are increasingly burdensome as more people begin selling pharmaceuticalsfinancial services, and even groceries over the Internet. Zuccarini, F3d 3d Cir. To successfully prosecute an ACPA claim, you must first establish that the defendant “registers, traffics consumwr or uses” the offending domain name. 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.

The same mark can legitimately be used by different concerns in different markets, or geographic areas.