
	Where results make sense

Topic: Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act

In the News (Fri 17 Feb 12)

EXECUTIVE POWER

Iran

ANALYSIS

Pakistan

Family compact

	Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (also known as Truth in Domain Names Act), a United States federal law enacted in 1999, is part of A bill to amend the provisions of title 17, United States Code, and the Communications Act of 1934, relating to copyright licensing and carriage of broadcast signals by satellite (S.
		The act consists of several amendments to the Trademark Act of 1946 to provide protection from Cybersquatters to trademark holders, a section providing similar protections for individuals' names, an amendment to the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470a(a)(1)(A)), protecting the names of historical site.
		Most of the act applies retroactively to all domain names, however the damages made possible by the act only apply to domain names registered after it was enacted.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Anticybersquatting_Consumer_Protection_Act (366 words)

	FAQ about ACPA -- Chilling Effects Clearinghouse
		ACPA provides that cyberpirates can be fined between $1,000 and $100,000 per domain name for which they are found liable, as well as being forced to transfer the domain name.
		Answer: The ACPA provides that there is no bad faith if the domain name holder believes, and had reasonable grounds to believe, that his or her use of the domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful.
		Most of the ACPA provisions are now found in the Lanham Act at 15 USC 1125(d), 15 USC 1114 and 15 USC 1117.
	chillingeffects.org /acpa/faq.cgi (2942 words)

	Ference and Associates - Law Bytes
		An amendment to that act, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which allows an "owner of a mark" to bring an in rem action against domain names in certain circumstances, became law on November 29, 1999.
		Given the limited relief afforded by the Act, namely "the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark," no due process violation occurs here as to defendants personally.
		The court considers the enactment of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act a classic case of the distinction between in rem jurisdiction and in personam jurisdiction and a proper and constitutional use of in rem jurisdiction.
	www.ferencelaw.com /lawbytes/caesars.html (1360 words)

	Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act - United States Trademark Law Overview
		This case was initiated in the district court as a claim under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act but, while its appeal was pending, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act was passed.
		Monetary damages for ACPA violations are generally available under §1117, but not for violations occurring prior to its enactment.
		Since damages were not available under the ACPA because the violation occurred prior to its enactment, the appeals court upheld the trial court's award of injunctive relief in the form of an order to transfer the domain name to the plaintiff.
	home.att.net /~jmtyndall/ustm/ACPA.htm (842 words)

	CYBERSQUATTING: THE LATEST CHALLENGE IN FEDERAL TRADEMARK PROTECTION
		Cybersquatting cases predating the ACPA demonstrate that the Lanham Act's trademark infringement and dilution provisions are ill-equipped to corral the ever-swelling ranks of cybersquatters.
		If the three foregoing elements of the ACPA are satisfied, a court may order general injunctive relief, including the forfeiture, cancellation or transfer of the domain name to the trademark owner, even if the domain name was registered prior to the enactment of the ACPA.
		Likewise, since the ACPA applies only to trademarks that are distinctive at the time a corresponding domain name is registered, the fact that the domain name was registered in good faith prior to the corresponding trademark (distinctive or not) forecloses the right of the trademark holder to claim the domain name.
	www.law.duke.edu /journals/dltr/articles/2001dltr0009.html (4132 words)

	November 2001
		Under the ACPA, a person is liable for civil damages if they (1) register, use or traffic in a domain name that is (2) identical or confusingly similar to (3) a distinctive or famous mark owned by the plaintiff, and (4) the person has a "bad faith intent to profit" from such activity.
		The ACPA also adds a unique in rem jurisdiction provision to give domestic plaintiffs the ability to obtain control over their marks against international, or absentee, defendants who would be beyond the reach of U.S. courts.
		The ACPA requires that the domain name be identical to, or confusingly similar with, a "distinctive" or "famous" mark in existence at the time the allegedly infringing domain name is registered.
	www.utahbar.org /barjournal2000/html/november_2001_2.html (4559 words)

	Domain Name Disputes: FAQ - The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
		Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act is a federal law that took affect on November 29, 1999.
		An infamous cybersquatter named John Zuccarini lost an ACPA lawsuit in October of 2000, when the court awarded the plaintiff statutory damages of $500,000 for each of five domain names that were obtained in bad faith and that were confusingly similar to the plaintiff's trademark.
		Another reason to use the ACPA is to avoid the time and expense of a UDRP action when the trademark owner suspects the cybersquatter would "appeal" the results of the UDRP action.
	www.keytlaw.com /urls/acpa.htm (1267 words)

	Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
		The elements for commencing a civil action under the ACPA are 1) the domain name is "identical or confusingly similar" to a trademark owned by the complainant or dilutes a famous trademark, and 2) the domain name registration or use has been conducted in bad faith.
		The bad faith element under the ACPA incorporates nine factors under the ACPA inthat are non-exhaustive to balance the rights of the trademark owners from those that have useful, legitimate and non-infringing uses of the domain names.
		In summary, the major difference between the ACPA and the UDRP is that under the APCA, the trademark must have been distinctive or famous when registered, while the UDRP extends protection for marks that are generic or descriptive.
	www.maineandasmus.com /publications/trademark-articles/acpa-udrp.htm (2254 words)

	Sidley Austin \| CyberLaw \| Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act Update: Second Circuit Issues First Appellate ...
		Nonetheless, applying the Anticybersquatting Act, the Court found, first, that “sporty’s” is inherently distinctive and, second, that “sportys.com” is confusingly similar, especially given that apostrophes are not allowed in domain names.
		Turning to the Act’s central “bad faith intent to profit” analysis, the Court analyzed several of the nine factors mentioned in the statute and made a determination of this intent as a matter of law.
		Despite the reassurance of the Second Circuit’s decision, the development of the Anticybersquatting Act is still not without difficulty given that the Circuit was not presented with the somewhat controversial jurisdictional provisions of the Act.
	www.sidley.com /cyberlaw/features/anticyber.asp (1522 words)

	Sidley Austin \| CyberLaw \| Fighting Cybersquatters: Methods for Domain Name Dispute Resolution
		Stating that the Act does not limit the bad faith analysis to the listed factors, the court went on to consider the defendant’s confessions to the court that he set up sites targeting corporate America and the legal community and found the fight “over 70 bucks” to be entertaining.
		ACPA Is Not a Taking: The court stated that defendant failed to show that he would likely prevail on his argument that the ACPA is a retroactive, unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
		The ACPA provides for another basis for liability that is not relevant here, namely trademarks, words, or names protected by 18 U.S.C. § 706 (governing the use of the “Red Cross” and derivations thereof) or 36 U.S.C. § 220506 (governing the use of the “Olympic Committee” and derivations thereof).
	www.sidley.com /cyberlaw/features/cybersquatter.asp (4488 words)

	WAIS Document Retrieval
		Generally, the Act is intended to protect the public from acts of Internet ``cybersquatting,'' a term used to describe the bad- faith, abusive registration of domain names, and section 3002(b) in particular contains a prohibition on certain acts of cybersquatting that involve the personal names of living persons.
		Section 3006 of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act directs the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Patent and Trademark Office and the Federal Election Commission, to conduct a study and report to Congress with recommendations on guidelines and procedures for resolving disputes involving personal names, the subject of section 3002(b).
		The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act provides for federal protection against the unauthorized use of personal names as domain names by individuals with a ``specific intent'' to profit from such name by selling the domain name for financial gain to that person or any third party.
	www.cybertelecom.org /DNS/cybersquatting2.htm (1750 words)

	[Trademarks Now Clearly Enforceable on the Web: The Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act Becomes Law, James P. ...
		The Act then goes on to lay out criteria for determining whether the alleged squatter’s registration should be considered one made in bad faith.
		First, the Act allows for constructive service of process on the cybersquatter through publication and through providing of notice to the postal and e-mail addresses the cybersquatter provided to the domain name registrar, even if such addresses were incorrect when given.
		The Act is an important first step in policing trademarks right in an area of commerce once described by the phrase "There is no law west of the modem." Now there is a law that will protect trademark owners in all areas.
	www.ebglaw.com /article_16.html (578 words)

	Epstein Drangel Bazerman & James, Intellectual Property, Technology and Media Law
		The Anti Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act was enacted into law on November 18, 1999, and we already have a first Circuit Court decision under the Act.
		During the pendency of the appeal, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act was passed.
		The Circuit court first noted that the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act was passed just to remedy the perceived shortcomings of applying the Federal Trademark Dilution Act in cybersquatting cases, such as this one.
	www.ipcounselors.com /20000214.htm (1563 words)

	Caesars World, Inc. v. Caesars-Palace.Com
		An amendment to that act, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which allows an "owner of a mark" to bring an in rem action against domain names in certain circumstances, because law on November 29, 1999.
		In particular, Casares.com argues that the in rem provisions of the Anticybersquating Consumer Protection Act are unconstitutional, both facially and as applied.
		The court considers the enactment of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act a classic case of the distinction between in rem jurisdiction and inpersonam jurisdiction and a proper and constitutional use of in rem jurisdiction.
	pub.bna.com /ptcj/99550.htm (1320 words)

	CyberSquatting
		Notwithstanding, the Act does specifically provide that, where a person believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that the use of a domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful, a court cannot find bad faith intent, and therefore, there can be no violation of the Act.
		Despite the use of this Act in recent lawsuits, trademark owners should be aware of several issues that could arise as to the scope of the new law's protection.
		The Act states that a party who has "reasonable grounds to believe" that its use was fair or otherwise lawful does not act in bad faith.
	vincenti.com /html/cybersquatting.html (1240 words)

	Crowell & Moring LLP \| Publications By Practice (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-20)
		Specifically, the Act imposes liability on any person who registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a mark that is distinctive or famous at the time the domain name is registered, and who has a bad faith intent to profit from the mark.
		The Act does not extend to innocent domain name registrations by those who are unaware of another's rights in the name or who do not have a bad-faith intent to profit from the registration.
		Those who protect their location in cyberspace may well be the 21st century real estate barons, while those who let their rights slip away could take the place of the Lenape Indians, who are said to have sold Manhattan to the Dutch for $24.
	www.crowell.com /content/resources/publications/art_jis_cyber100.htm (2421 words)

	Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act: A Powerful Remedy In Domain Name Disputes? Or A Threat To Electronic ...
		In many cases, the domain name that takes consumers to the Internet site and the graphic interface that greets them when they get there are the only indications of source and authenticity, and legitimate and illegitimate sites may be indistinguishable in cyberspace.
		The bill does not provide blanket protection to the trademark owner or owner of a personal name protected as a mark, rather it provides a remedy against the "bad faith" appropriation of the mark.
		The Act also prohibits the unauthorized registration of a domain name that is the same as or confusingly similar to the name of another living person, if done with intent to profit from the domain name by selling it for financial gain to such person or a third party.
	www.fmew.com /archive/cybersquat (2669 words)

	Trademark Protection in Internet Domain Names (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-20)
		We will then discuss the legislative history of the ACPA and how its provisions have been applied in the context of case law from several different jurisdictions, concluding with how it may be modified so as to adequately address future threats posed by the theft of corporate and/or individual goodwill in the burgeoning cyber marketplace.
		Consumer reliance on trademarks is greatest in the case of difficult-to-inspect or very similar products, unequivocally the easiest scenarios in which unethical competitors might attempt to divert goodwill from the market leader to themselves through counterfeiting.
		Remember, the traditional purpose of trademark law is protection of the consumer as opposed to the protection of politicians and big business, although increasingly trademarks are being recognized for their proprietary value in the world of cyberspace.
	gsulaw.gsu.edu /lawand/papers/su01/hinnant_meek (5520 words)

	Burkard, Peter H., Remedies Against Unlawful Domain Names: A Comparison of Recent Developments under US and German Law, ... (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-20)
		The legislative history of the Act indicates that it was intended to apply to domain names and specifically work to remedy the problem of one entity registering the domain name that matches another entity’s famous mark.
		The ACPA additionally contains an escape clause preventing a court from finding bad faith intent if the court determines that the defendant both believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that use of the domain name was a fair use or was otherwise lawful.
		protects the rightful ownership and use of the names of natural and juridical persons, and it was this provision that generated some of the early judicial decisions involving domain name conflicts.
	www.wvu.edu /~law/wvjolt/Arch/Burk/Burk.htm (9386 words)

	Mettler-Toledo, Inc. -- Chilling Effects Clearinghouse
		Consumers could be likely to believe that the product with the confusingly similar mark is produced by the organization that holds the registered mark.
		If no goods or services are being offered, or the goods would not be confused with those of the mark owner, or if the term is being used in a literary sense, but not to label or otherwise identify the origin of other goods or services, then the term is not being used commercially.
		A trademark is protected only within the geographic area where the mark is used and its reputation is established.
	www.chillingeffects.org /acpa/notice.cgi?NoticeID=179 (2293 words)

	[No title]
		(a) Remedies in Cases of Domain Name Piracy.-- (1) Injunctions.--Section 34(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1116(a)) is amended in the first sentence by striking ``(a) or (c)'' and inserting ``(a), (c), or (d)''.
		The court may also grant injunctive relief to the domain name registrant, including the reactivation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the domain name registrant.
		The court may grant injunctive relief to the domain name registrant, including the reactivation of the domain name or transfer of the domain name to the domain name registrant.''.
	www.law.berkeley.edu /institutes/bclt/pubs/swbook/cybersquat-law.html (906 words)

	Internet Law - Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-20)
		Affirming the District Court, the Eighth Circuit holds that plaintiffs are likely to prevail on Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ("ACPA") claims arising out of defendant's registration of numerous domain names incorporating plaintiffs' trademarks, which domains defendant linked to a website advocating a ban on abortions.
		Court holds plaintiff infringed defendants' trademarks, and violated the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ("ACPA"), as a result of his operation of a 'typo' web site at the domain Fallwell.com at which he criticized the Rev. Falwell's views on homosexuality, and expressed his own contrary views on that subject.
		The Court determined that defendant's actions were not motivated by the requisite bad faith intent to profit from the use of the mark, but rather, by defendant's desire to inform the public about his dispute with plaintiff and the services it offered him.
	www.phillipsnizer.com /library/topics/anticybersquatting.cfm (1164 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)