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: Bami Branris
Country: France
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Medical
Published (Last): 7 October 2010
Pages: 442
PDF File Size: 5.36 Mb
ePub File Size: 8.27 Mb
ISBN: 631-9-69265-217-1
Downloads: 34141
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Goltijinn

The final factor is whether defendant is making a “bona fide noncommercial or fair acr of the mark on a site accessible under the domain name. See Sporty’s Farm L. Use of a strong well-known mark evidences bad faith. In “exceptional cases,” attorney’s fees can also be recovered.

Views Read Edit View history. And there have been an even smaller number of cases in which courts have awarded statutory damages. 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 anticybersquahting Internet address at which it resides.

Evidence of such registrations can be obtained by performing a reverse “who is” search. 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.

Cybertelecom :: ACPA

Similarly, that defendant has made no anticybersquattinb use of his domain, or the mark, is also not dispositive on this issue. The ACPA does not prevent the fair use of trademarks or any use protected by the First Amendmentwhich includes gripe sites. 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, anticyberquatting the proetction prank of redirecting an unsuspecting consumer to pornographic content, to the destructive worldwide slander of a centuries-old brand name.

If your mark is “famous,” you can prevail not only if the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to your mark, but also if it is “dilutive.

Or what if the registrant resides outside of the United States? Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service. The court’s finding of bad faith rested in large part on its determination that plaintiff had offered to transfer the domain to defendant if it refunded certain lease payments plaintiff had made which were at the heart of his dispute with defendant, as well as funds plaintiff claimed defendant improperly received from third parties.


In determining whether the domain name registrant has a bad faith intent to profit, a court may consider many factors, including nine that are outlined in the statute:.

For example, it was used by E.

Statutory damages under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act: CatalanotteF3d 6th Cir. Unfortunately, some cybersquatters have read these cases carefully and have taken the necessary precautions to insulate themselves from liability. 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.

One of ACPA’s primary deterrents is the threat of large statutory damage awards. 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.

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.

Chasser, “Early cases include Intermatic, Inc. Federal courts have concluded that UDRP decisions are not binding on them. As shown above, the ACPA is a useful weapon against those who anticyberzquatting register a domain containing your mark.

Dispute looms over launch of. 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. 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.

Cybersquatters, however, may no longer be able to hide behind the bankruptcy laws. A number of at have addressed the retroactivity of the ACPA’s statutory damages provision. The court held defendants acted in bad faith because they had registered the domain as “real anticybersqustting on which they had intended to make a profit, and had registered some 2, additional domains containing the names of famous companies, cities and buildings.


The UDRP allows a trademark owner to challenge domain name registrations in expedited administrative proceedings. The costs associated with these risks are increasingly burdensome as more people begin selling pharmaceuticalsfinancial services, and even groceries over the Internet.

The final element you need to establish is the most difficult to demonstrate, namely the motivation for defendant’s conduct. Some domainers relied on domain tastingwhich involves placing pay-per-click ads on the domain for five days or less to determine whether the ads will make more than the annual cost of the domain. 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.

Alternatively, for registrants whose identity is unknown, the mark holder must establish that he cannot locate the defendant both by sending notice antiycbersquatting the address listed with the domain registrar, and by publishing notice of the lawsuit as directed by the court. Judicial protectio of a WIPO decision is de novo. The chart published at the end of this article is a survey of the 32 anticybersuatting awarding statutory damages that the authors have located.

On-line extortion in any form is unacceptable and outrageous. Kicking squatters off your domain name: Related USA articles Resolving domain name disputes: In determining whether a particular domain name was registered or used in good faith, the use made of the domain name prior to the commencement of the parties’ dispute is particularly important.

Misspelling the Owner’s 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.

This requires proof of defendant’s bad faith, even though he is not present before the court. According to consumeg reports, millions of domain names registered every month are dropped after being tasted, and only a small percentage of names are permanently registered. The authors prorection aware of only one case that has found an ACPA violation but refused to award anticyberrsquatting damages for substantive reasons.

To prevail anticybersquattng an ACPA claim, you must show that defendant acted with “a bad faith intent to profit from [your] mark.