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):||28 November 2017|
|PDF File Size:||14.75 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.34 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Purdy, F3d 8th Cir.
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
Courts, particularly those in the United States anficybersquatting cybersquatting is an especially pressing issue, have typically utilized traditional concepts in trademark law to provide some trademark owners anticybersqustting remedies for harm caused by piracy on the Internet.
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: The ACPA’s congressional record consistently signals the drafters’ intention to target a narrow class of cyber-squatters consisting of those who have the bad faith intent to profit, and not to tread on the rights of those with any other motives.
Domaining is the business of registering a domain name and anticyebrsquatting it or placing pay-per-click ads on it.
That is, provided proteection 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. Evidence of such registrations can be obtained by performing a reverse “who is” search. But what if the domain registrant has provided false contact information, preventing you from knowing who to sue?
Cybertelecom :: ACPA
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. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit “registering a famous trademark as a domain name and then offering it for sale to the trademark owner is exactly the wrong Congress intended to remedy when it passed the ACPA. On-line extortion in any form is unacceptable and outrageous. My saved default Read later Folders shared with you.
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, to the destructive worldwide slander of a centuries-old brand name.
PurdyF3d 8th Cir. As anticyversquatting above, the Lanham Act provides that courts may award attorneys’ fees for violations of the ACPA in “exceptional cases” under Section a. Plaintiff prevailed despite the fact that defendants neither offered the domain for sale, nor used it to sell wine products. 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.
Statutory Damages and Cybersquatting Duration The Fifth Circuit has provided some guidance on awarding statutory damages in relation to the duration of the cybersquatting. 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.
In addition, cybersquatters often prktection well-known marks to prey on consumer confusion by misusing the domain name anticybersqutting divert customers from the mark owner’s site to the cybersquatter’s own site, many of which are pornography sites that derive advertising revenue based on the number of visits, or ”hits,” the site receives.
According to various reports, millions of domain names registered every month are dropped after being tasted, and only a small percentage of names are permanently registered.
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. 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. ToeppenF. It so held notwithstanding the extensive body of case law permitting such liability where a registrar is shown to have acted outside the normal ministerial bounds of domain registration.
To prevail on an ACPA claim, you must show that defendant acted with “a bad faith intent to profit from [your] mark. These individuals attempt to profit from the Internet by reserving and later reselling or licensing domain names back to the companies that spent millions of dollars developing the goodwill of the trademark. Ives LabsU.
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. Judicial review of a WIPO decision is de novo. The ACPA protects both registered and unregistered common-law marks.
As observed by the U. Relief can still be obtained under the ACPA’s in rem provisions.
As a result, consumers have come to rely heavily on familiar brand names when engaging in online commerce. Further Duplication without permission is prohibited.