|
|
|
Protecting Your Domain Name Understanding The Anti Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
espite the simple disputes over domain names. functionality on many First, a person or company can levels of a domain name, it take action under the Uniform is vital to the success of an Domain Name Dispute Policy. The online business enterprise. At benefits of this process is that its heart, a domain name it is relatively fast and essentially is an address that relative inexpensive. There are tells a user of the Internet how drawbacks that include the fact to find a particular website. In that this process is not many instances, the owners of available to all domain names, it trade or service marks use their is not appropriate for license marks as part of their business disputes and damages and attorney domain names. Nonetheless, there fees cannot be recovered through are many instances in which this process. someone else may take advantage and start using the trade or The other alternative available service mark as part of another to a person or company who domain name. With this well in believes it has been wronged or mind, it is incumbent upon trade violated in terms of a domain and service mark owners to name related issue is the monitor to make certain that Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer others are not misusing their Protection Act ("ACPA"). The ACPA intellectual property in the was enacted in 1999 and was registration of other domain designed to prevent names. cybersquatting on the Internet. No matter how the domain name Cybersquatting generally is usage actually is discovered, considered the use of domain trade or service mark owners have names that are confusingly two basic options for resolving similar to trademarks and service
marks owned by other business determines that the person enterprises or individuals. believed and had reasonable The ACPA can impose liability on grounds to believe that the use the registrant of such a domain of the domain name was a fair use name (or its licensee) if that or otherwise lawful." person or entity has done the following: For example, the actual trade or service mark owner must (i)has a bad faith intent to demonstrate that the challenged profit from the mark; and, domain name is confusingly similar to its own trade or (ii)registers, traffics in, or service mark. Only the challenged uses a domain name that is domain name and the trade or identical or confusingly similar service mark will be compared to the mark and the mark (or under the ACPA. According to the dilutive if the mark is famous) ACPA, the proper inquiry is was distinctive (or famous) at whether the defendant's domain the time of the domain name name is so similar to the registration. plaintiff's trade or service mark that the two could be confused by The ACPA does establish a set of a third party. nine nonexclusive factors that a court may utilize in working to If the mark owner is successful determining whether a person or in the action, the court may entity has acted in bad faith, order the forfeiture, has a bad intent, in regard to a cancellation or transfer of the domain name registration. The domain name. Moreover, the mark ACPA states that "Bad faith owner may recover the defendant's intent . . . shall not be found profits, any damages sustained by in any case in which the court the owner of the trademark and
its costs of the action. google_ad_format = "728x15_0ads_al"; Pursuant to the statute, the owner of the mark may elect to google_ad_channel = recover statutory damages, in "3545651507"; lieu of actual damages and profits. The court can award google_color_border = statutory damages in an amount "FFFFFF"; between $1,000 and $100,000 per domain name. google_color_bg = "FFFFFF"; Claims that are made under the google_color_link = ACPA and UDRP are two options "0000FF"; available to trade and service mark owners who are trying to google_color_text = protect their mark from being "3E3F43"; used by others in bad faith. google_color_url = "3E3F43"; "pub-8542272527121315";
|
|