View source for Rights Protection Mechanisms

===[[Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act|ACPA]] & [[UDRP]]: 1999-2000===
At the end of 1999, as part of the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, Congress passed the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACCPA). The law amended the [[Lanham Act]] to explicitly forbid cybersquatting. ACPA assigns civil liability to any person who:
#has a bad faith intent to profit from [a] mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section; and
#registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that— 
##in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark;
##in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark; or
##is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/706 section 706 of title 18, United States Code] [names and marks of the Red Cross], or [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/220506 section 220506 of title 36, United States Code] names and marks of U.S. Olympics organizations.<ref name="accpa">The ACPA was included in an omnibus appropriations bill, available [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-106publ113/pdf/PLAW-106publ113.pdf here] (PDF)</ref><ref name="cornell">[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125#d_1 HTML version] via Cornell Legal Information Institute</ref>
ACPA codified the Ninth Circuit's decision in ''Panavision'' and made the offer to sell a domain to the mark holder sufficient to invoke liability: 
<blockquote>As used in this paragraph, the term “traffics in” refers to transactions that include, but are not limited to, sales, purchases, loans, pledges, licenses, exchanges of currency, and any other transfer for consideration or receipt in exchange for consideration.<ref name="cornell" /></blockquote> 
ACPA applied to all domain registrations, past, present, and future. However, statutory damages were only available to plaintiffs in cybersquatting cases where the domain was registered after the effective date of the law.<ref name="accpa" />

In the same time frame, the U.S. Department of Commerce drafted the [[White Paper]] that led to the creation of ICANN. The white paper also stated the Commerce Department's intention to ask [[WIPO]] to study and formulate solutions to trademark issues around domain names.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/white-paper-2012-02-25-en US Dept. of Commerce - Management of Internet Names and Addresses], archived on ICANN.org]</ref> WIPO presented their study to the newly-formed ICANN in April 1999.<ref name="udrphistory">[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/schedule-2012-02-25-en ICANN.org - Timeline for the Forumulation & Implementation of the UDRP]</ref> The board referred the matter to the [[DNSO]] for review and recommendations. At [[ICANN 3]] in Santiago, Chile, August 1999, a group of registrars submitted a proposed Model Dispute Resolution Policy.<ref name="udrphistory" /> The board instructed ICANN staff to formulate implementation documents, using the model policy as a starting point.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-1999-08-26-en#99.81 ICANN Board Resolution 99.81 et seq]</ref> After circulation and comment on draft documents, the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy ([[UDRP]]) was adopted by resolution on October 24, 1999.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-1999-10-24-en ICANN.org - Minutes of Special Meeting], October 24, 1999.</ref> [[WIPO]] became the first approved arbiter of UDRP proceedings on November 29, 1999.<ref name="udrphistory" /> Additional dispute-resolution service providers followed: the [[National Arbitration Forum]] (NAF) in 1999;<ref>[https://www.adrforum.com/domain-dispute/udrp ADRForum.com - UDRP]</ref> Disputes.org/eResolution Consortium in 2000 (subsequently transferred to eResolution);<ref>No longer active - decision archive available at [http://www.disputes.org/index.htm Disputes.org]</ref> and the CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution in 2000.<ref>No longer active - decision archive available at [https://www.cpradr.org/resource-center/icann-decisions CPRADR.org]</ref><ref name="udrphistory" /> Other dispute resolution services have since joined the list of approved arbiters.<ref name="providers">[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/providers-6d-2012-02-25-en ICANN's List of UDRP Service Providers]</ref>

The UDRP has remained unchanged since its adoption. The policy has been largely successful. In 2010, ICANN received reports of community concerns about variations in process between different dispute resolution services, and the risk of "forum shopping" to achieve favorable results.<ref name="providers" /> After a review of those concerns and all of its service providers, ICANN issued a memo regarding the uniformity of application of the UDRP rules in 2013.<ref name="udrpstatus">[https://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/providers/uniformity-process-19jul13-en.pdf UDRP Providers and Uniformity of Process - Status Report], July 2013 (PDF)</ref> Although they noted that each provider can set its own procedural rules, ICANN found no indication that service providers were varying in their application of the UDRP rules.<ref name="udrpstatus" /> They noted further that variation in processes (as well as localized language understanding) provided diversity of choice for claimants, and that the "forum shopping" claims did not have support within the actual results under the UDRP rules.<ref name="udrpstatus" />