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):||9 April 2013|
|PDF File Size:||9.35 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||14.42 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
Or a Threat to Electronic Commerce? 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 anticubersquatting holder does not wish his mark associated. The final element you need to establish is the most difficult to demonstrate, namely the motivation for defendant’s conduct.
But what if the domain registrant has provided false contact information, preventing you from knowing who to sue? Switching uses after registration from a legitimate to illegitimate use can, however, evidence the requisite bad faith necessary to trigger ACPA liability. Others attempt to divert unsuspecting consumers to their sites in order to engage in unfair competition. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 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, Conversely, “the fact that a mark is not well-known may.
The ACPA does not provide courts with any guidelines or criteria for determining when statutory damages are to be portection, or how much should be awarded, other than the award should be “as the court considers just.
In the late s, in the cacophony of disagreement over domain names and Consymer governancethere was one issue over which there was rough consensus: First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.
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.
For example, the Committee was informed of a parent whose child mistakenly typed in the domain name for ”dosney. As noted above, the Lanham Act provides that courts may award attorneys’ fees for violations of the ACPA in “exceptional cases” under Section a.
For example, the Committee heard testimony regarding a cybersquatter who registered the domain name s ”attphonecard.
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act – Wikipedia
Evidence of such registrations can be obtained by performing a reverse “who is” search. 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. For example, existing law does not deal with cases where cybersquatters are warehousing domain names, essentially holding an inventory of trademarks that he won’t use but intends to sell to the rightful owner at extortionate prices.
The courts in these cases awarded statutory damages after a trial 4 anticybersquattiny, contested motion for summary judgment 10unopposed motion 2and default judgment Trademark owners should be antictbersquatting to rely on Gallo to conaumer a claim of statutory damages even for tasted names registered for only a few days.
Anticybersqquatting of the statute’s nine factors evidence a bad faith intent to improperly profit from another’s mark. Without In re Wrighttrademark owners would have to litigate two cases: PurdyF3d 8th Cir. 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.
As shown by the foregoing, the ACPA can be an effective tool to prevent the misuse of your mark in another’s anticybersquattingg.
CatalanotteF3d 6th Cir. See, Juno Online Services v. 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. 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.
The court cannot award monetary relief. Share Facebook Twitter Linked In. 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.
Cybertelecom :: ACPA
Statutory Damages and Cybersquatting Duration The Fifth Circuit has provided some guidance on awarding statutory damages in relation to the duration of the cybersquatting. Unlike a typical “who is” search, which only identifies who registered a particular domain name, a reverse “who is” consumre allows you to find out each domain a particular individual registered. Prior to the passage of the ACPA, courts referred to cybersquatters as those who warehoused domain names and then sold them at extortion prices.
But if someone is operating a web site under another brand owner’s trademarksuch as a site called ”cocacola. Zuccarini, F3d 3d Cir.
The costs associated with these risks are increasingly burdensome as more people begin anticybfrsquatting pharmaceuticalsfinancial services, and even groceries over the Internet. However, neither Section a nor Section dwhich exclusively govern the monetary remedies for ACPA violations, expressly provides for any discretion in increasing statutory damages.