3,197
edits
Changes
no edit summary
In addition to broadly interpreting the "use in commerce" requirement to tag cybersquatters, courts have found dilution in cases where traditional dilution analysis might not have applied.<ref name="harvardcomm" /></blockquote>
In addition to broadly interpreting the "use in commerce" requirement to tag cybersquatters, courts have found dilution in cases where traditional dilution analysis might not have applied.<ref name="harvardcomm" /></blockquote>
===ACCPA & UDRP===
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. ACCPA 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 ACCPA 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>
ACCPA 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>
ACCPA 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" />
==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}