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):||13 November 2005|
|PDF File Size:||1.37 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.92 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Courts thus routinely look to offers by the defendant to sell the domain name as evidence of his bad faith. The ACPA protects consumdr registered and unregistered common-law marks. For example, the Committee was informed of a parent whose child mistakenly typed in the domain name for ”dosney. The ACPA does not provide courts with any guidelines or criteria for determining when statutory anticyybersquatting are to be awarded, or how much should be awarded, other than the award should be “as the court considers just.
The mark owner can also recover up to three times his actual damages and obtain injunctive rpotection. As shown above, the ACPA is a useful weapon against those who improperly register a domain containing your mark. Cybersquatters register well-known brand names as Internet domain names in order to force acg rightful owners of the marks to come forward and pay for the right to engage in electronic commerce under their own name.
The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act: 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 addition, the ACPA has been anticcybersquatting to combat gripe sites — Web sites critical of the mark holder set up at a domain containing his mark.
We also heard the account of a cybersquatter purporting to sell Dell Computer products under the name ”dellspares. Kicking squatters off your domain name: Once a trademark is registered as an online identifier or domain name, the cybersquatter can engage in a variety proyection 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.
Nor do they consider a domain name’s path, such as the phrase “Kohler faucets” in the domain homedepot. Prior to the passage of the ACPA, courts referred to cybersquatters as those who warehoused domain names and then sold them at extortion prices.
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act – Wikipedia
To view all formatting for this article eg, tables, footnotesplease access the original here. One of ACPA’s primary deterrents is the threat of large statutory damage awards. These include “cybersquatting,” which occurs when a registrant obtains a domain name containing another’s mark and offers to sell it to the mark holder consuer a tidy sum.
For example, existing law does not deal with cases where cybersquatters are warehousing domain names, essentially holding an inventory of trademarks that he won’t use but intends to sell to the rightful owner at extortionate prices.
See Sporty’s Farm L.
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.
Navigation Catalyst Systems, Inc. PrinceF. AntiCybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. Gallo Winery, owners of the “Ernest and Julio Cojsumer mark, to obtain from defendants the domain name ernestandjuliogallo.
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.
In the earliest case to do so, the Fifth Circuit held that the purpose of the ACPA’s statutory damages provision is similar to the statutory damages provision in the Rpotection Act, anticyberzquatting was intended not only to compensate the rights owner, but also to discourage wrongful conduct.
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act Law and Legal Definition
As observed by the U. Share Facebook Twitter Linked In.
Prior to the enactment of the ACPA, the first definition of cybersquatters in the federal courts was articulated by the Norther District of Illinois:. 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.
Thanks for doing such a great job!
Congress viewed the legal remedies available for trademark owners before the passage of the ACPA as “expensive and uncertain. My saved default Read later Folders shared with you. 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 term ‘ domain name ‘ means any alphanumeric designation which is registered with or assigned by any domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority as part of an electronic address on the Anticybersquattlng.
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 protecrion.
First, courts have not been shy in awarding large amounts of statutory damages.
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
In addition, cybersquatters often register well-known marks to prey on 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 ocnsumer based on the number of visits, or ”hits,” xnticybersquatting site receives. 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 courts in these cases awarded statutory damages after a trial 4contested motion for summary judgment 10unopposed motion 2and default judgment Cybersquatters, however, may no longer be able to hide behind the bankruptcy laws. Several courts have also looked to copyright case law in determining statutory damages under the ACPA. PrinceF.
A similar result was reached in Lamparello v. 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. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.
It thus remains to be seen whether: