ANTICYBERSQUATTING CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT PDF

ANTICYBERSQUATTING CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT PDF

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: Kajir Maukazahn
Country: Paraguay
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Career
Published (Last): 2 November 2014
Pages: 376
PDF File Size: 19.80 Mb
ePub File Size: 13.34 Mb
ISBN: 462-1-52264-645-9
Downloads: 82209
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kazralabar

In addition, cybersquatters often register well-known marks to prey on consumer confusion by misusing the domain name to divert customers from the mark owner’s site to the cybersquatter’s own site, many of which are pornography sites that donsumer advertising revenue based on the number of visits, or ”hits,” the site receives. The final element you need to establish is the most difficult to demonstrate, namely the motivation for defendant’s conduct.

Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act – Wikipedia

See, Panavision Int’l, L. And there have been an even smaller number of cases in which courts have awarded statutory damages. The party that obtains this registration is known as the “domain name registrant. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

Related USA articles Resolving domain name disputes: Application of this principle allowed a defendant to defeat an ACPA claim brought by plaintiff arising out of defendant’s registration of the domain chambord.

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.

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act: Developments Through Its First Six Years

The costs associated with these risks are increasingly burdensome as more people begin selling pharmaceuticalsfinancial services, and even groceries over the Internet. The statute enumerates two final factors courts may consider in determining defendant’s motivation. 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.

Names or Nicknames 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. The Gallo decision could be an important weapon in trademark owners’ escalating battles with domain tasters, i.

The ACPA also provides that the trademark owner can file an in rem action against the domain name in the judicial district where the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority registered or assigned the domain name is located if: That is, provided the court does not find that the defendant anticybersquattnig and had reasonable grounds to believe that the use of the domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful.

  DUIZEND SCHITTERENDE ZONNEN PDF

Specifically, the Ninth Circuit recently held that an election consumee recover statutory damages for trademark counterfeiting under Section c foreclosed the award of attorneys’ fees under Section b.

The chart published at the end of this article is a survey of the 32 cases awarding statutory damages that the authors have located. Chasser, “Early cases include Intermatic, Inc. 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. Four of the statute’s nine factors evidence a bad faith intent to improperly profit from another’s mark.

A similar result was reached in Lamparello v. Alternatively, for registrants whose identity is unknown, the mark holder must establish that he cannot locate the defendant both by anticybfrsquatting notice to the address listed with the domain registrar, and by publishing notice of the lawsuit as directed by the court. Once a trademark is registered as an online identifier or domain name, the cybersquatter can engage in a variety of nefarious activities–from the relatively benign parody of a business or individual, to the obscene prank of redirecting an unsuspecting consumer to pornographic content, acr the destructive worldwide slander of a centuries-old brand name.

See, Juno Online Services v.

Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act

The final factor is whether defendant is making a “bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark on a site accessible under the domain name. Help support this site. Despite the problems it presents to trademark owners and consumers, cybersquatting, is not illegal per se. Finally, many courts appear to 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. We are here today to hear evidence on a new form of high- tech fraud that is causing confusion and inconvenience for consumers, increasing costs for people doing business on the Internet, and posting substantial threat to a century of pre- Internet American business efforts.

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.

But if someone is operating a web site under another brand owner’s trademarksuch as a site called ”cocacola. Gallo Winery, owners of the anticybersquattibg and Julio Gallo” mark, to obtain from defendants the domain name ernestandjuliogallo.

These include “cybersquatting,” which occurs when a registrant obtains a domain name containing another’s mark and offers to sell it to the mark holder for a tidy sum.

The trademark counterfeiting provision of the Lanham Act also allows parties to elect to receive statutory damages instead of actual damages or profits, but similarly fails to provide guidelines to courts for determining an appropriate award. 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 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 domain.

  BINATONE CAPRICE 500 PDF

Cybersquatters, however, may no longer be able to hide behind the bankruptcy laws. 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 protwction.

For example, the Committee was informed of a parent whose child mistakenly typed in the domain name for ”dosney.

PrinceF. 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. Views Read Edit View history.

The defendant, in addition to this domain registration, also had registered approximately other domain names, many based on trademarks of well-known businesses, including deltaairlines. Prior to the passage of the ACPA, courts referred to cybersquatters as those who warehoused domain names and then sold them at extortion prices. 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. Switching uses after registration from a legitimate to illegitimate use can, however, evidence the requisite bad faith necessary to trigger ACPA liability.

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

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.

The authors are aware of only one case that has found an ACPA violation but refused to award statutory damages for substantive reasons.

Or what if the registrant resides outside of the United States? One district court, however, recently held that an in rem plaintiff in an ACPA case may also recover the monetary remedies provided under Section a for other causes of action under the Lanham Act. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 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.