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 March 2010|
|PDF File Size:||18.54 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.70 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act Law and Legal Definition
The monetary remedies discussed above are all available in ACPA actions against domain name registrants over whom a court has established personal jurisdiction. As observed by the U.
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 revenue based on the number of visits, or ”hits,” the site receives.
Statutory Damages and Cybersquatting Duration The Fifth Circuit has provided some guidance on awarding statutory damages in relation to the duration of the cybersquatting. Languages Italiano Polski Edit links. As a result, consumers have come to rely heavily on familiar brand names when engaging in online commerce. The court held defendants acted in bad faith because they had registered the domain as “real estate” on which they had intended to make a profit, and anticygersquatting registered some 2, additional domains containing the names of famous companies, cities and buildings.
Statutory damages under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
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.
USA June 13 Consequently, trademark owners are forced to engage in a continual monitoring program–waiting to see if the cybersquatter begins anticybdrsquatting use their domain name, offers it for sale to the public, provides legitimate contact information to the registration authority, or fails to renew the registration with the registration authority.
For example, it was used by E. Related USA articles Resolving domain name disputes: One district pdotection, however, recently held that an in rem plaintiff in an ACPA case may also recover the monetary remedies provided under Section a for other causes of action under the Lanham Act.
To view all formatting for this article eg, tables, footnotesplease access the original here.
Statutory damages under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act – Lexology
In “exceptional cases,” attorney’s fees can also be recovered. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. The trademark counterfeiting provision of the Lanham Act also allows parties to elect to receive statutory damages instead of protectin damages or profits, but similarly fails to provide guidelines to courts for determining an appropriate award.
CatalanotteF3d 6th Cir.
Regardless of what is being sold, the result anticybersquaatting online brand name abuse, as with other forms of trademark violations, is the erosion of consumer confidence in brand name identifiers and in electronic commerce generally. But if someone is operating a web site under another brand owner’s trademarksuch as a site called ”cocacola.
One of ACPA’s primary deterrents is the threat of large statutory damage awards.
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.
Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service. As shown above, the ACPA is a useful weapon against those who improperly register a domain containing your mark.
Only “the domain name registrant or that registrant’s authorized licensee” can be held liable for such “use. 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.
See Sporty’s Farm L. 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.
For example, several years ago a small Canadian company with a single shareholder and a couple of dozen domain name s demanded that Umbro International, Inc. The authors are aware of only one case that has found an ACPA violation but refused to award statutory damages for substantive reasons.
My saved default Read later Folders shared with you. Such is also true of the submission of false contact information to a domain name registrar, which is taken as a sign the defendant neither wants to be identified nor held accountable for his conduct. The statute enumerates two final factors courts may consider in determining defendant’s motivation. A similar result was reached in Lamparello v.
The ACPA protects both registered and unregistered common-law marks.
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act – Wikipedia
Federal courts at concluded that UDRP decisions are not binding on them. Such a finding prevents a determination that defendant acted with the requisite “bad faith. Login Register Follow on Twitter Search. Hunn, Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act: The ACPA does not provide courts with any guidelines or criteria for determining when statutory damages are to be awarded, or how much should be awarded, other than the award should be “as the court considers just.
To proceed in rem, the mark holder must demonstrate that he cannot establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant.