Our office receives many calls from people and businesses that are threatened with an Anti-cyber squatting Consumer Protection Act claim, because you register a domain name identical or similar to a trademark held by third parties. Inevitably, we hear the words "Network Solutions has allowed me to register the domain, so there is no way to tell someone that I did something wrong."
Of course, Network Solutions and other registrars do little to ensure that a personThe registration of a domain is right to do so. In fact, the only thing to the registrar of any person, to reaffirm the rule that does not interfere with some other purchases legitimate trademark rights. The fact that you are able to register a domain name does not mean that you are not sure that pretending to be sued under federal law.
Data Link Plc
The ACPA is a federal law to that effect in November 1999 was held to exclude bad faith registration of domain names. This new domain name disputesAct is the trademark and service mark owners legal remedies against the defendants, the domain name "in bad faith," which are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark to obtain. To win a case of cyber squatting, plaintiff must prove that the defendant has a bad faith intent to profit from the mark which is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark of the actor or diluted. The key element is that the plaintiff must prove that the accused had "a bad faith intent to profit transfer agreementsthe brand. "This means that if the domain only defendant and does nothing with it commercially actor is a difficult if not impossible, proving breach of good faith. Typically intention to profit is shown with the use of the domain as a commercial website that sells goods or services. For an offense allegedly domain, has not developed a website, Respondent intends to profit is often shown when the defendant is tried, the domain name to sell the brand owner. The transfer ofthe domain for the examination usually meet the achievement test.
Another factor is bad faith if the registrant provides false contact information to contact the Registrar or the information is not correct to hold on. Why this is bad faith, it is important that all owners of domain names, their domain registrations to identify periodically in the WHO database to see if their address is correct.
If you decide to file a lawsuit ACPA, it has aVariety of means that are available under the law. The most important is the potential loss or cancellation of the domain name or transfer of the domain name to the applicant. Instead of actual damages, the plaintiff may choose statutory damages and discretion to allocate between $ 1,000 and $ 100,000 damages for bad faith registration. Legal fees are also an unfair registration. Sometimes, the holder of the domain can not be found or served with a summonsComplaint because they have supplied false or not in the U.S.. In these cases, the owners is a registered trademark in action "in rem" against the domain name in the judicial district, assigned to the registrar, domain name registration or other authority domain name or domain name. Economic damages are not available in action "real" available. Typically, the trademark owner, with more attention to the domain namehas been transferred.
A recent Sixth Circuit Court if Appeals, Interactive Products, Inc. v. A2Z Mobile Office, No 01-3590 (6th Cir. April 10, 2003), not good news for brand owners in our jurisdiction. The Court held that the "post-domain path of a URL (the sub-directory file) ... Do not say a rule, the source (of goods or services). The post-domain path merely shows how the site is organized into data files on the host computer. "Consequently, the sixthCircuit, was that the brand presence of lead actor in the path of the domain name to confuse consumers probably a competitor. It is interesting to note that the court has this result, even if the defendant, A2Z, was the sale of competing products. It should be noted that the judge has decided not to some other brand in the top-level domain on the same site or in the meta-tag is exempt from liability ACPA.
ACPA each case is presented by the particular facts. TheIt should also be noted that the plaintiff Interactive Products has brought no evidence that the presence of its trademark in the post-domain path of the current confusion caused or was likely to cause confusion for the consumer. If such evidence has been presented and the result would have been different. The ACPA in an important weapon for trademark owners to protect intellectual property in the online world. If you do not protect your trademarks, you may lose the rights to these brandstotal. Also, if you protect the brand, then who?
Anti-Cyber Squatting Consumer Protection Act Update