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):||16 March 2009|
|PDF File Size:||14.65 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.46 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
Unlike a typical “who is” search, which only identifies who registered a particular domain name, a reverse “who is” search allows you to find out each domain a particular individual registered.
Registration of multiple domain names containing marks owned by third parties also evidences bad faith. In the legislative history, cybersquatting is described as a “nefarious” activity, an fraudulent activity, and as a get-rich scheme.
First Interstate Bank of Denver and premised on the Circuit Court’s determination that the ACPA is not part of the Lanham Act and therefore protecttion included in the anticybersquatfing permitting secondary liability for trademark infringement enunciated in Inwood Labs v.
Help support this site.
And there have been an even smaller number of cases in which courts have awarded statutory damages. We also heard the account of a cybersquatter purporting to sell Dell Computer products under the name ”dellspares. Congress viewed the legal remedies available for trademark owners before the passage of the ACPA as “expensive and uncertain.
Statutory damages under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act – Lexology
Further Duplication without permission is prohibited. One of ACPA’s primary deterrents is the threat of large statutory damage awards.
While such a use is evidence of defendant’s good faith, it is not dispositive as “to recognize such an exemption would eviscerate the protection of the bill by suggesting a blueprint for cybersquatters who would simply create criticism sites in order to immunize themselves from liability despite their bad faith intentions.
While the ACPA contemplated the purchase of domain names for resale to trademark owners, it did not contemplate the more modern practice of domaining. 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 prorection statute:.
For example, the business operating under the ahticybersquatting name ”disneytransportation. The monetary remedies discussed above are all available in ACPA actions against domain name registrants over whom a court has established personal jurisdiction. 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.
The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act: Developments Through Its First Six Years
CatalanotteF3d 6th Cir. The ACPA does not prevent the fair use of trademarks or any use protected by the First Amendmentwhich includes gripe sites. Hunn, Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act: The ACPA has also been used to prevent domain registrants from improperly profiting from the commercial use of another’s mark, such as by selling or displaying ads for products that compete with those of the mark holder at a domain containing the mark.
Dispute looms over launch of. Please contact customerservices lexology.
As a result, consumers have come to rely heavily on familiar brand names when engaging in online commerce. Finally, one “traffics in” an offending domain when he transfers or receives the domain in exchange for consideration, such as via a sale, purchase, protsction, pledge or license.
In addition, cybersquatters often register well-known marks to prey atnicybersquatting 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 derive advertising revenue based on the number of visits, or ”hits,” the site receives.
Click here to view table.
Relief can still be obtained under the ACPA’s in rem provisions. PrinceF. Follow Please login to follow content. Thanks for doing such a great job!
Navigation Catalyst SystemsF. Likewise, a dilution claim could be prevented by avoiding making initial offers of sale to the legitimate trademark anticyversquatting, thus defeating the courts’ lines of precedent construing offers to sell domain names as a form of use in commerce.
Navigation Catalyst Systems, Inc. To prevail on an ACPA claim, you must show that defendant acted with “a bad faith intent to profit from [your] mark. 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.