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):||1 February 2005|
|PDF File Size:||18.99 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.22 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The actual amount awarded is fixed by the court in anticybrrsquatting discretion. Trademark owners should be able to rely on Gallo to support a claim of statutory damages even for tasted names antivybersquatting for only a few days. Moreover, a few trends are discernible. Retrieved Oct 1, 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.
The ACPA does not prevent the fair use of trademarks or any use protected by the First Amendmentacf includes gripe sites.
Unfortunately, some cybersquatters have read these cases carefully and have taken the necessary precautions to insulate themselves from liability. Purdy, F3d 8th Cir. Conclusion Although the ACPA was enacted more than eight years ago, and the registration of domain names worldwide has exploded, we still have relatively little insight into how courts determine a particular amount of statutory damages.
The practice of cybersquatting harms consumers, electronic commerceand the goodwill equity of valuable U. This decision will hopefully deter cybersquatting while at the same time making it easier for trademark owners to collect on statutory damage awards under the ACPA.
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 Gallo decision could be an important weapon in trademark owners’ escalating battles with domain tasters, i.
The final factor is whether defendant is making a “bona fide noncommercial or fair use proyection the mark on a site accessible under the domain name. PrinceF.
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.
The authors are aware of only one case that has found an ACPA violation but refused to award statutory damages for substantive reasons. Languages Italiano Polski Edit links. 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 not included in the rule permitting secondary liability for trademark infringement enunciated in Inwood Labs v.
A review of the cases in which courts have awarded statutory damages, however, shows that the courts have identified or discussed a wide variety of factors that play a role in determining the amount of statutory damages they awarded under the ACPA.
Courts, particularly those in the United States where cybersquatting is an especially pressing issue, have typically utilized traditional concepts in trademark law to provide some trademark owners with remedies for harm caused by piracy on the Internet.
As shown by the foregoing, the ACPA can be an effective tool to prevent the misuse of your mark in another’s domain. Several courts have also looked to copyright case law in determining statutory damages under the ACPA. Use of a strong well-known mark evidences bad faith. Switching uses after registration from a legitimate to illegitimate use can, however, evidence the requisite bad faith necessary to trigger ACPA liability.
To prevail on an ACPA claim, you must show that defendant acted with “a bad faith intent to profit from [your] mark. The first is the relative strength of the mark at issue. Cybersquatters target distinctive marks for a variety of reasons.
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. Judicial review of a WIPO decision is de novo. However, neither Section a nor Section dwhich exclusively govern the monetary remedies for ACPA violations, expressly provides for any discretion in increasing statutory damages.
The court noted, however, that it did not decide the issue of whether a counterfeiting plaintiff who elected to receive statutory damages was precluded from an award of attorneys’ fees for “exceptional cases” under Section a. 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:. Under the ACPA, a trademark owner may bring a cause of action against a domain name registrant who.
Whether it’s people extorting companies by registering company names, misdirecting Internet users to inappropriate sites, or otherwise attempting to damage a trademark that a business has spent decades building into a recognizable brand, anyone engaging in cyber-squatting activity should be held accountable for their actions.
Dispute looms over launch of. There, the court found that a disgruntled customer violated the ACPA by registering a domain name containing defendant’s trademark, at which he operated a Web site critical of defendant. While the ACPA contemplated the purchase of domain names for resale to trademark owners, it did not contemplate the more modern practice of domaining. PurdyF3d 8th Cir.
Designer Skin LLC v. Related USA articles Resolving domain name disputes: This can be done where the domain name registrant resides in a foreign country. ToeppenF. 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.
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.
Views Read Edit View history. This page was last edited on 18 Decemberat Reverse domain hijacking Cybersquatting Domain name drop list Domain name speculation Domain sniping Domain parking Domain tasting Domain name warehousing Doppelganger domain Type-in traffic Typosquatting Domain name front running. Cybersquatters register famous trademarks in bulk, but in most cases, do not post an active Web site.