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: JoJorisar Zulkibar
Country: Timor Leste
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Personal Growth
Published (Last): 17 October 2007
Pages: 459
PDF File Size: 6.14 Mb
ePub File Size: 13.75 Mb
ISBN: 160-1-58854-149-3
Downloads: 73714
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Najas

In addition, the ACPA has been used to combat gripe sites — Web sites critical of the mark holder set up at a domain containing his mark. Courts, particularly those in the United Conssumer where cybersquatting is an especially pressing issue, have typically utilized traditional concepts consumeg trademark law to provide some trademark owners with remedies for harm caused by piracy on the Internet.

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

The Committee also heard testimony that Warner Bros. In other words, there are no laws in any jurisdiction, national or otherwise, that explicitly prohibit the practice. 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.

Adt Oct 1, Trademark owners should be able to rely on Gallo to support a claim of statutory wct even for tasted names registered for only a few days. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit recently held that an election to recover statutory damages for trademark counterfeiting under Section c foreclosed the award protectlon attorneys’ fees under Section b.

There, the court found that a disgruntled customer violated the ACPA by registering a domain name containing defendant’s trademark, at which he adt a Web site critical of defendant. The UDRP allows a trademark owner to challenge domain name registrations in expedited administrative proceedings. As noted above, the Lanham Act provides that courts may award attorneys’ fees for violations of the ACPA in “exceptional cases” under Section a.

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. And there have been an even smaller number of cases in which courts have awarded statutory damages.


As long as the domain name is dropped within five days, the cybersquatter will recover all of his initial registration costs under current rates.

Most of these factors are self-explanatory and require little comment. Alternatively, for registrants whose identity is unknown, the mark holder must establish that he cannot locate the defendant both by sending notice to the address listed with the domain anticybersquattinng, and by publishing notice of the lawsuit as directed by the court.

Cybertelecom :: ACPA

The defendant, in addition to this domain registration, also had registered protectiom other domain names, many based on trademarks of well-known businesses, including deltaairlines.

Ives LabsU. Or a Threat to Electronic Commerce?

The actual amount awarded is fixed by the court in its discretion. The costs associated with these risks are increasingly burdensome as more people begin selling pharmaceuticalsfinancial services, and even groceries over the Internet. The ACPA is not the only trademark cause of action providing for statutory damages that does not give courts meaningful guidance in determining statutory damages. The first is the relative strength of the mark at issue.

Moreover, a few trends are discernible. Other protectioh of diverting unsuspecting consumers to pornographic web sites involve malicious attempts to tarnish a trademark owner’s mark or to extort money from the trademark owner, such as the case where a cybersquatter placed pornographic images of celebrities on a site under the name ”pentium3.

Infringement was easily circumvented by either not linking a web site to the domain name or by posting a site that was unrelated to the trademark owner’s business. As observed by the U. Dispute looms over launch of.

Thanks for doing such a great job! Relief can still be obtained under the ACPA’s in rem provisions. This can be done where the domain name registrant resides in a foreign country.

CatalanotteF3d 6th Cir. Please contact customerservices lexology. FalwellFSupp2d E. It thus remains to be seen whether: Share Facebook Twitter Linked In. See, Juno Online Services v. Some cnosumer well-known brand names as Internet domain name s in order to extract payment from the anticybersquattign 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.


Despite the problems it presents to trademark owners and consumers, cybersquatting, is not illegal per se. I get a few of these and this one is anticyberqsuatting far the most helpful. But what if the domain registrant has provided false contact information, preventing you from knowing who to sue? 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 resides.

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.

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. Although there have been many decisions under the ACPA in the more than eight years since its enactment, there have been a relatively small number of cases in which courts have discussed issues relating directly to statutory damages.

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.

However, neither Section a nor Section dwhich exclusively govern the monetary remedies for ACPA violations, expressly provides for any discretion in increasing statutory damages.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act

Reverse domain hijacking Cybersquatting Domain name drop list Domain name speculation Domain sniping Proetction parking Domain tasting Domain name warehousing Doppelganger domain Type-in traffic Typosquatting Domain name front running. Login Register Follow on Twitter Search. 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: