Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==Legislative History== | ==Legislative History== | ||
Senator Spencer Abraham from Michigan introduced '''S.1255 (Trademark Cyberpiracy Prevention Act)''' in the Senate on July 21, 1999 | Senator Spencer Abraham from Michigan introduced '''S.1255 (Trademark Cyberpiracy Prevention Act)''' in the Senate on July 21, 1999; it was co-sponsored by Senators John Breaux, Orrin Hatch, Patrick Leah, Trent Lott, John McCain and Robert Torricelli. The bill is an amendment of the '''Trademark Act of 1946''', which allows the legal owner of a trade or service mark to file a civil action against any person, who in bad faith intentionally registers a domain name that is confusingly similar or identical to a distinct mark or dilutive or popular mark to gain profit.<ref>[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN01255:@@@L&summ2=m& S.1255 Bill Summary]</ref> A related bill '''H.R. 3028''' was sponsored by Rep. James Rogan in the House of Representatives. | ||
Subsequently on July 22, the Judiciary Committee chaired by Sen. Hatch conducted a hearing regarding the bill. Several individuals testified in the hearing | Subsequently on July 22, the Judiciary Committee chaired by Sen. Hatch conducted a hearing regarding the bill. Several individuals testified in the hearing, including: [[Anne H. Chasser]], president of the [[International Trademark Association]], [[Christopher D. Young]], president and CEO of [[Cyveillance, Inc.]] and Gregory D. Phillips, Partner at Howard, Phillips & Anderson Law Firm in Salt Lake City, Utah.<ref>[http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/ACPA%20leg%20history.pdf Judiciary Committee Hearing]</ref> | ||
On June 19, 1999, the Judiciary Committee conducted an executive session to consider the bill. Sen. Hatch and Sen. Patrick Leahy,offered a substitute amendment to the bill which received | On June 19, 1999, the Judiciary Committee conducted an executive session to consider the bill. Sen. Hatch and Sen. Patrick Leahy,offered a substitute amendment to the bill, which received unanimous consent. The bill was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar 240. | ||
On Ausgut 5, 1999, Sen. Hatch filed the Judiciary Committee's Report, '''Senate Report 106-140''' citing '''Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act''' as the short title of the Act. Section 2 of the report also cited the Congress findings which include:<ref> | On Ausgut 5, 1999, Sen. Hatch filed the Judiciary Committee's Report, '''Senate Report 106-140''' citing '''Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act''' as the short title of the Act. Section 2 of the report also cited the Congress' findings, which include:<ref> | ||
[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp106&sid=cp1061LpHW&refer=&r_n=sr140.106&item=&&&sel=TOC_1777&Senate Report 106-140]</ref> | [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp106&sid=cp1061LpHW&refer=&r_n=sr140.106&item=&&&sel=TOC_1777&Senate Report 106-140]</ref> | ||
1. The registration, trafficking in, or use of a domain name that is identical to, confusingly similar to, or dilutive of a trademark or service mark of another that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, with the bad-faith intent to profit from the goodwill of another’s mark (commonly referred to as "cyberpiracy" and "[[cybersquatting]]. | 1. The registration, trafficking in, or use of a domain name that is identical to, confusingly similar to, or dilutive of a trademark or service mark of another that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, with the bad-faith intent to profit from the goodwill of another’s mark (commonly referred to as "cyberpiracy" and "[[cybersquatting]]". | ||
* results in consumer fraud and public confusion as to the true source or sponsorship of goods and services; | * results in consumer fraud and public confusion as to the true source or sponsorship of goods and services; | ||
* impairs electronic commerce, which is important to interstate commerce and the United States economy; | * impairs electronic commerce, which is important to interstate commerce and the United States economy; | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
The Anticybersquatting Protection Act is '''Title III of S. 1948, 106th Congress, the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999.'''<ref>[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c106:1:./temp/~c106XL7the:e80238: S. 1948]</ref> It was enacted as final appendix to '''Public Law 106-113''', <ref>[http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/cyberlaw/ACPA-PL106-113.html]P.L.106-113]</ref> which was signed into law by President [[Bill Clinton]] on November 29, 1999.<ref>[http://democrats.rules.house.gov/archives/98-714.pdf CRS Report for Congress]</ref> | The Anticybersquatting Protection Act is '''Title III of S. 1948, 106th Congress, the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999.'''<ref>[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c106:1:./temp/~c106XL7the:e80238: S. 1948]</ref> It was enacted as final appendix to '''Public Law 106-113''', <ref>[http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/cyberlaw/ACPA-PL106-113.html]P.L.106-113]</ref> which was signed into law by President [[Bill Clinton]] on November 29, 1999.<ref>[http://democrats.rules.house.gov/archives/98-714.pdf CRS Report for Congress]</ref> | ||
==Court Cases related to Violations Of ACPA== | ==Court Cases related to Violations Of ACPA== | ||
* Newport News Holdings Corporation (NNHC) vs. Virtual City Vision, Inc. (VCV)- This case was first resolved under the [[ICANN]] Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy ([[UDRP]]) in 2000 when NNHC accused VCV's newportnews.com website was registered in bad faith andconfusingly similar to its Newport News website. The ICANN UNDRP panel dismissed NNHC's allegations citing that even if the domain names are similar, visitors to NNHC's branded website were looking for women's clothing and home fashions. VCV's website offers city information. The panel also cited that there in no competition between the two companies business offering. VCV's website remained unchanged not until 2004 when it started to women clothing advertisements. In 2007, NNHC offered to buy VCV's website however, its owner declined and changed newportnews.com's business offerings from providing city information to women's fashions. In 2008, the website became highly dominated with women's clothing and this prompted NNHC to file trademark infringement case agains VCV.<ref>[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10290906611629346909 NNHC vs. VCV]</ref> | * Newport News Holdings Corporation (NNHC) vs. Virtual City Vision, Inc. (VCV)- This case was first resolved under the [[ICANN]] Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy ([[UDRP]]) in 2000 when NNHC accused VCV's newportnews.com website was registered in bad faith andconfusingly similar to its Newport News website. The ICANN UNDRP panel dismissed NNHC's allegations citing that even if the domain names are similar, visitors to NNHC's branded website were looking for women's clothing and home fashions. VCV's website offers city information. The panel also cited that there in no competition between the two companies business offering. VCV's website remained unchanged not until 2004 when it started to women clothing advertisements. In 2007, NNHC offered to buy VCV's website however, its owner declined and changed newportnews.com's business offerings from providing city information to women's fashions. In 2008, the website became highly dominated with women's clothing and this prompted NNHC to file trademark infringement case agains VCV.<ref>[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10290906611629346909 NNHC vs. VCV]</ref> | ||