DOCSLIB.ORG

Domain Names and Cybersquatting Protecting Your Brand and Marks from Online Infringement Presents a Live 90-Minute Audio Conference with Interactive Q&A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Domain Names and Cybersquatting Protecting Your Brand and Marks from Online Infringement Presents a Live 90-Minute Audio Conference with Interactive Q&A Domain Names and Cybersquatting Protecting Your Brand and Marks From Online Infringement presents A Live 90-Minute Audio Conference with Interactive Q&A Today's panel features: Paul D. McGrady, Jr., Greenberg Traurig, Chicago Karol A. Kepchar, Partner, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Washington, D.C. Ira J. Levy, Partner, Goodwin Procter, New York Tuesday, June 16, 2009 The conference begins at: 1 pm Eastern 12 pm Central 11 am Mountain 10 am Pacific The audio portion of this conference will be accessible by telephone only. Please refer to the dial in instructions emailed to registrants to access the audio portion of the conference. Check back later for additional handouts. CLICK ON EACH FILE IN THE LEFT HAND COLUMN TO SEE INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATIONS. If no column is present: click Bookmarks or Pages on the left side of the window. If no icons are present: Click View, select Navigational Panels, and chose either Bookmarks or Pages. If you need assistance or to register for the audio portion, please call Strafford customer service at 800-926-7926 ext. 10 DEFINITIONS Domain Name: a "nickname" of a location on the Internet that is easier for humans to remember than the actual internet protocol address, e.g. <amazon.com> ICANN: ICANN is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers located in Marina del Ray, California. ICANN is tasked with the safety and security of the Internet. Top Level Domain or TLD: This refers to the content of the domain name which resides on the right of the "dot", for example, .com, .net, .de. New TLD's: A new round of top level domain names which can contain either generic term or branded content on the right hand side of the "dot", e.g. .soda or .coke. Second Level Domains: the content in a domain name directly to the left of the "dot", e.g. "amazon" is the second level in <amazon.com>. gTLD or "generic top level domain": domain names which are governed by ICANN contract and have "generic" material to the right of the "dot", for example .com which is short for "commercial." ccTLD or "country code top level domain": domain names which are governed by national registries and reflect the abbreviation for that country on the right hand side of the "dot", for example, .hk (Hong Kong) or .ro (Romania). Some ccTLD registries operate in cooperation with ICANN and some do not. Some ccTLD registries have adopted the UDRP and some have their own dispute resolution policies and some have no dispute policies at all. UDRP: UDRP is short for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy promulgated by ICANN. In order to prevail in a UDRP complaint, a complainant must show that they have trademark rights which correspond to a domain name, that the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. WIPO: WIPO is short for the "World Intellectual Property Organization", a part of the United Nations. WIPO, located in Geneva, Switzerland, is one of several UDRP providers and shares a nearly even market share with the NAF. NAF: NAF is short for the National Arbitration Forum, located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, is one of several UDRP providers and shares a nearly even market share with WIPO . Cybersquatting: Registering domain names which consist of the brands of others for a bad faith purpose. Although cybersquatting takes many forms, historically cybersquatters registered domain names containing the brands of others in an attempt to sell them back to the brand owner at a premium. In more recent years, cybersquatters have registered such domain names to profit from the PPC traffic generated by the domain names. PPC: PPC is short for pay-per-click. Revenue generated from PPC advertisements associated with domain names which have been cyber squatted upon fuels much of the cybersquatting industry. This process is often referred to as “monetization.” ACPA: ACPA is short for the "Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act", a U.S. federal law prohibiting cybersquatting. Although the elements of the ACPA are similar to those of the UDRP, the remedies available under the ACPA are more significant, including up to $100,000 in potential statutory penalties. Registrar (gTLD): organizations which are accredited by, and under contract with, ICANN to register domain names with registries on behalf of registrants. Registry (gTLD): organizations which are under contract with ICANN to provide registry services for a particular TLD. For example, VeriSign is the registry for all .com domain names. Registrant (gTLD): the person or organization that contracts with a registrar to have that registry obtain a domain name from the registry for use by the registrant. WHOIS: the public record of who owns a domain name. Privacy or Proxy Service: an organization that contracts with a registrant and agrees to populate the WHOIS record with its information rather than the information of the registrant. Host: the organization upon whose servers the content that resolves to a particular domain name resides. DNS Records: The name of the Host's servers. Their identification can be found at the bottom of the WHOIS record. © 2009 McGrady on Domain Names EnforcingEnforcing TrademarksTrademarks AgainstAgainst InfringementInfringement byby DomainDomain Names:Names: TheThe LitigationLitigation OptionOption KarolKarol A.A. KepcharKepchar JuneJune 16,16, 20092009 -053880.0003 HOUSTON 233229 v1 AA DomainDomain NameName isis anan AddressAddress È Fundamentally, a street address for a location on the Internet, for example: http://www.akingump.com È Domain name ownership is first and foremost a contractual right (there may also be a trademark right, but not necessarily so) -2- 59999.0000 HOUSTON 234886v1 WhatWhat isis aa ““TrademarkTrademark””?? The term trademark includes any word, name, symbol or device, or any combination thereof, used to identify and distinguish a person’s goods, including a unique product, from those of others, and to indicate the source of the goods, even if that source is unknown. 15 U.S.C. § 1127 -3- 59999.0000 HOUSTON 234886v1 TrademarksTrademarks TheThe InteriorInterior DécorDécor ofof RAINFORESTRAINFOREST CAFECAFE TheThe INTELINTEL ToneTone LogoLogo TheThe scentscent ofof plumeriaplumeria onon yarnyarn -4- 59999.0000 HOUSTON 234886v1 DomainDomain NamesNames areare TrademarksTrademarks IfIf…….... • They Function to indicate Source or Sponsorship of the Products, Services or Business. •That usually means that the domain name corresponds to an existing mark. •“From Scratch” – Amazon.com domain name corresponds to Amazon.com mark in content of site, ads etc. •Compare: flowers.com resolves to site of 1-800- FLOWERS.COM (a registered trademark) -5- 59999.0000 HOUSTON 234886v1 Registering/ProtectingRegistering/Protecting DomainDomain NamesNames AsAs TrademarksTrademarks È You cannot register URLs (xyz.com), unless also used as a MARK . È Generally, TLD’s serve no source indicating function -- therefore, their addition to an otherwise unprotectable term typically cannot render it protectable. -6- 59999.0000 HOUSTON 234886v1 AssessingAssessing thethe TrademarkTrademark Threat/DamageThreat/Damage ofof DomainDomain NamesNames È Is the registered domain name active? È If active, is the website content DAMAGING – e.g., competitor, counterfeits, pornographic? È What is the TLD for the domain name? Is it a .com or .es? È Priorities -7- 59999.0000 HOUSTON 234886v1 CausesCauses ofof Action:Action: DomainDomain NameName LitigationLitigation The Umbrella of “Unfair Competition” • Keyword Advertising • Metatag Usage • Pop-up advertising • Cybersquatting • Trademark Infringement -8- 59999.0000 HOUSTON 234886v1 Domain Name Disputes: The UDRP Option Ira J. Levy Michelle King (Summer Associate) June 16, 2009 ©2009. Goodwin Procter LLP UDRP Overview ü Background ü Procedure ü Common Concerns What is UDRP? • The UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) was adopted in late 1999 by ICANN (the private authority responsible for the administration of certain Internet technical parameters) to offer an alternative to litigation in local courts to settle complaints by trademark owners about cybersquatting. To Whom Does UDRP Apply? • All accredited registrars in the .biz, .com, .info, .name, .net, and .org top- level domains. Benefits to Using UDRP • Speed • Ease of Filing • Informal Proceedings • Experts Making the Decisions • International in Scope • Relatively Low Cost Various Providers • World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) • National Arbitration Forum (NAF) • Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC) • Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) UDRP — Elements • Alternative dispute resolution where third party asserts that – A domain name is “identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights” – The registrant has “no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name” – The domain name was “registered and is being used in bad faith.” UDRP—Identical/confusingly similar • Usually not an issue. • Panel will ignore addition of: – .com or other TLD – generic descriptive word – omission/addition of letters or characters UDRP—Legitimate Interest • Demonstrable preparations to use domain name or name corresponding to domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services – Use of a domain name for purposes of offering search engine services with “pop-up” advertisements and “sponsored links” to competitors of the complainant, is not legitimate or bona fide under the Policy. See
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dispute Resolution Mechanisms and Trademark Cybersquatting in Gtlds Old Style, Cctld Style and Gtld New Style
    Dispute Resolution Mechanisms and Trademark Cybersquatting In ccTLD, Old Style gTLD and New Style gTLD Systems COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE US, EU AND INTERNATIONAL APPROACHES By Waddah Al-rawashdedh University of Szeged Faculty of Law and Political Sciences Graduate School Hungary 2017 Spring Dispute Resolution Mechanisms & Trademark Cybersquatting Table of Contents Page DEDICATION ............................................................................................ 8 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................... 9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................... 10 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................ 12 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER 1 DOMAIN NAMES AND TRADEMARKS ................................................ 22 1.1. Overview ....................................................................................... 22 1.2. Meaning of Domain Names and Domain Name System (DNS) ............................................................................................. 22 1.3. The Need and Importance of Domain Names ........................... 25 1.4. Types of Domain Names ............................................................. 26 1.4.1. “Country-code” TLDs ............................................................................... 26 1.4.2. “generic” TLDs ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Global Brand Management Landscape: Strategies for 2017 and Beyond
    The Global Brand Management Landscape: Strategies for 2017 and Beyond October 4, 2016 Gabriela Kennedy Partner and Head of Asia IP & TMT Group Mayer Brown JSM Michael Adams Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP Mayer Brown LLP Mayer Brown is a global legal services organization comprising legal practices that are separate entities ("Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP, a limited liability partnership established in the United States; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liabilitypartnership incorporated in England and Wales;and JSM, a Hong Kong partnership, and its associated entities in Asia. The Mayer Brown Practices are known as Mayer Brown JSM in Asia. 1 Overview of Program • Elements of a Brand Management Program • Trademarks and Brands • Domain Names • Social Media • Policy and Advocacy Engagement for Brand Owners 2 2 Elements of a Brand Management Program • Importance of a Cohesive Global Brand Management Program • Trademarks – Domestic and International Portfolio • Internet Presence – Domain Names, Social Media, and Other Web Content • Policy and Advocacy Engagement – Domestic and Global 3 Trademarks and Brands: Trademark Portfolio Best Practices • Trademark searching and clearance strategies • Trademark applications and registrations • Trademark enforcement strategy program • Trademark in transitions – rebranding, mergers / acquisitions and more 4 Trademark Searching and Clearance Strategies: U.S. PRELIMINARYKNOCK-OUTSEARCH • A knock-out search locates blatant conflicts with existing marks that would prevent use and registration of the proposed mark • This search saves time and money! • Mayer Brown can usually provide results in approximately 48 hours, or on a more expedited basis if requested urgently 5 Trademark Searching and Clearance Strategies: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Opposition to Trade Mark Application No. 303659310Ab
    TRADE MARKS ORDINANCE (Cap. 559) OPPOSITION TO TRADE MARK APPLICATION NO. 303659310AB MARK: CLASSES: 16, 18, 25 APPLICANT: KABUSHIKI KAISHA MIXI (MIXI, INC.) (now changed name to MIXI, INC.) OPPONENT: MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION Background 1. On 14 January 2016, Kabushiki Kaisha Mixi (Mixi, Inc.) (the “applicant”) filed an application (the “subject application”) under the Trade Marks Ordinance, Cap. 559 (the “Ordinance”) for registration of the following mark:- (the “subject mark”). 2. Registration is sought in respect of various classes of goods. The subject application was subsequently divided into 303659310AA and 303659310AB. The present proceedings is only in relation to the latter which seeks to register the following goods (“subject goods”) in Classes 16, 18, 25:- Class 16 pastes and other adhesives for stationery or household purposes, printed lottery tickets [other than toys]; paper and cardboard; stationery; printed matter; paintings [pictures]; calligraphic works; photographs [printed]; photograph stands; cards; card files; trading cards; note books; file folders; mechanical pencils; ballpoint pens; stickers [stationery]; notepads; calenders; sacred lots [Omikuji]. 1 Class 18 handbag frames; purse frames; horseshoes; clothing for pets; straps for luggage; bags; pouches; portable vanity cases [not fitted]; umbrellas; tote bags; purses; credit card cases [wallets]. Class 25 tee-shirts; clothing; garters; sock suspenders; braces for clothing [suspenders]; waistbands; belts [clothing]; footwear [other than boots for sports]; masquerade costumes; clothing for sports; boots for sports; sleep masks. 3. Particulars of the subject application were published on 27 May 2016. Monster Energy Company (the “opponent”) filed a notice of opposition which includes a “Statement of Grounds of Opposition” (the “Grounds of Opposition”) on 17 August 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Trademark Law and Practice
    WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION INTRODUCTION TO TRADEMARK LAW & PRACTICE THE BASIC CONCEPTS A WIPO TRAINING MANUAL GENEVA 1993 (Second Edition) ( ( WIPO PUBLICATION No 653 (El ISBN 92-805-0167-4 WIPO 1993 PREFACE The present publication is the second edition of a volume of the same title that was published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in 1987 and reprinted in 1990. The first edition was written by Mr. Douglas Myall, former Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, United Kingdom. The present revised edition of the publication has been prepared by Mr. Gerd Kunze, Vevey, Switzerland, and reflects his extensive expertise and experience in the administration of the trademark operations of a large international corporation, Nestle S. A., as well as his intensive involvement, as a leading representative of several international non-governmental organizations, in international meetings convened by WIPO. This publication is intended to provide a practical introduction to trademark administration for those with little or no experience of the subject but who may have to deal with it in an official or business capacity. Throughout the text, the reader is invited to answer questions relating to the text. Those questions are numbered to correspond to the answers that are given, with a short commentary, in Appendix I. Arpad Bogsch Director General World Intellectual Property Organization February 1993 ( ( LIST OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. TRADEMARKS AND OTHER SIGNS: A GENERAL SURVEY 7 1.1 Use of trademarks in commerce . 9 1.2 What is a trademark?. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 1.3 Need for legal protection .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 1.4 How can a trademark be protected? .
    [Show full text]
  • The Trend Towards Enhancing Trademark Owners' Rights-A Comparative Study of U.S. and German Trademark Law, 7 J
    Journal of Intellectual Property Law Volume 7 | Issue 2 Article 2 March 2000 The rT end Towards Enhancing Trademark Owners' Rights-A Comparative Study of U.S. and German Trademark Law Rudolf Rayle the University of Iowa Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/jipl Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Rudolf Rayle, The Trend Towards Enhancing Trademark Owners' Rights-A Comparative Study of U.S. and German Trademark Law, 7 J. Intell. Prop. L. 227 (2000). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/jipl/vol7/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Georgia Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Intellectual Property Law by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Georgia Law. Please share how you have benefited from this access For more information, please contact [email protected]. Rayle: The Trend Towards Enhancing Trademark Owners' Rights-A Comparativ JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW VOLUME 7 SPRING 2000 NUMBER 2 ARTICLES THE TREND TOWARDS ENHANCING TRADEMARK OWNERS' RIGHTS-A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF U.S. AND GERMAN TRADEMARK LAW Rudolf Rayle* I. INTRODUCTION Conventionally trademarks are said to serve primarily as source identifiers. They are the medium through which consumers identify a particular product with a specific source (i.e., serve an identification or origin function). The origin function is therefore claimed to be the main function of trademarks and at first glance the definitions of trademarks in the Lanham Act as well as in the German Trademark Act, seem to confirm this traditional view.' * Rudi Rayle attended the Universities of Bonn and Tuebingen, Germany.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol. 93 TMR 1035
    Vol. 93 TMR 1035 RECONSIDERING INITIAL INTEREST CONFUSION ON THE INTERNET By David M. Klein and Daniel C. Glazer∗ I. INTRODUCTION Courts developed the theory of initial interest confusion (or “pre-sale confusion”) to address the unauthorized use of a trademark in a manner that captures consumer attention, even though no sale is ultimately completed as a result of any initial confusion. During the last few years, the initial interest confusion doctrine has become a tool frequently used to resolve Internet- related disputes.1 Indeed, some courts have characterized initial interest confusion on the Internet as a “distinct harm, separately actionable under the Lanham Act.”2 This article considers whether the initial interest confusion doctrine is necessary in the context of the Internet. Courts typically have found actionable initial interest confusion when Internet users, seeking a trademark owner’s website, are diverted by identical or confusingly similar domain names to websites in competition with, or critical of, the trademark owner. A careful analysis of these decisions, however, leads to the conclusion that a distinct initial interest confusion theory may be unnecessary to resolve cases involving the unauthorized use of a trademark as a domain name. In fact, traditional notions of trademark infringement law and multi-factor likelihood of confusion tests may adequately address the balancing of interests required in cases where courts must define the boundaries of trademark owners’ protection against the use of their marks in the domain names of competing websites. The Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA)3 and the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA)4 provide additional protection against the unauthorized use of domain names that dilute famous marks or evidence a bad ∗ Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Master of the Domain (Name)
    Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal Volume 17 | Issue 2 Article 5 January 2001 Master of the Domain (Name): A History of Domain Name Litigation and the Emergence of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy Colby B. Springer Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Colby B. Springer, Master of the Domain (Name): A History of Domain Name Litigation and the Emergence of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, 17 Santa Clara High Tech. L.J. 315 (2000). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj/vol17/iss2/5 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Master of the Domain (Name): A History of Domain Name Litigation and the Emergence of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy Colby B. Springer" TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ......................................................................................... 316 II. Internet Fundamentals ......................................................................... 317 III. The Domain Name System: IP Addresses and Domain Names .......... 318 IV. Getting Stuck in the Web: Domain Name Registration
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual-Property Laws in the Hong Kong S.A.R.: Localization and Internationalization Paul Tackaberry"
    Intellectual-Property Laws in the Hong Kong S.A.R.: Localization and Internationalization Paul Tackaberry" In preparation for the handover, Hong Kong en- En vue de la r6trocession, l'ancien conseil 16gis- acted local ordinances in the areas of patents, designs latif de Hong-Kong a adopt6 diverses ordonnances and copyright. A new Trade Marks Ordinance is ex- dans les domaines des brevets, du design et des droits pected after the handover. Interestingly, much of this d'auteurs. On s'attend 6galement . ce qu'une ordon- legislation is based on United Kingdom statutes. The nance sur les marques de commerce soit adoptde peu success of this legislation in safe-guarding intellectual- de temps apr~s la r6trocession. Plusieurs de ces textes property rights ("IPRs") will depend less upon its con- 16gislatifs sont bas6s sur le module anglais. Le succ~s tents, and more upon a clear separation of the state and de la protection des droits de propridt6 intellectuelle judiciary in the Special Administrative Region ddpendra toutefois moins du contenu de ces lois que de ("S.A.R.") of Hong Kong. Despite the absence of a la s6paration claire entre le systime judiciaire et l'tat 1997 CanLIIDocs 49 tradition of the formal protection of IPRs, China has dans la nouvelle Zone administrative sp6ciale de Hong- identified a need to enact comprehensive intellectual- Kong. Bien qu'elle n'ait pas de tradition de protection property legislation. However, the absence of Western- de Ia propri6t6 intellectuelle, la R6publique populaire style rule of law in China has contributed to foreign de Chine a reconnu la n6cessit6 d'adopter une 16gisla- dissatisfaction with the enforcement of IPRs.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore
    Intellectual Property Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore IP Newsletter We are delighted to share with you the latest edition of our May 2015 Intellectual Property newsletter covering the latest developments in Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. We trust you will find this newsletter useful. If you would like any further information, please contact the team in your jurisdiction. Best regards, Baker & McKenzie.Wong & Leow (Singapore) Hadiputranto, Hadinoto & Partners (Indonesia) In This Issue Wong & Partners (Malaysia) Recent Developments In: Indonesia Malaysia Singapore Indonesia Latest News Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 29 of 2014 on the Guidelines of Application and Issuance of For more information, please Operational License and Evaluation of Collecting contact: Societies Kuala Lumpur Chew Kherk Ying Pursuant to the enactment of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Partner +60 3 2298 7933 Copyright ("Copyright Law"), the Ministry of Law and Human [email protected] Rights ("MOLHR") has issued Regulation No. 29 of 2014 on the Guidelines of Application and Issuance of Operational Singapore License and Evaluation of Collecting Management Society Andy Leck Managing Principal, ("Regulation No. 29"). Tel: +65 6434 2525 [email protected] The Copyright Law urges authors, copyright holders and Jakarta performers to be members of collecting societies in order to Daru Lukiantono manage and collect royalties from the commercial use of their Partner copyright and neighboring rights from the public. The Tel: +62 21 2960 8588 [email protected] Copyright Law indicates that collecting societies should be non-profit in nature and obtain operational licenses from the MOLHR by fulfilling certain requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Cybersquatting: Threat to Domain Name
    International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE) ISSN: 2278-3075, Volume-8, Issue- 6S4, April 2019 Cybersquatting: Threat to Domain Name Sukrut Deo, Sapna Deo Abstract— The present article deals with conflicts arising out cybersquatters use combination of illicit and legal work. The of registration of domain names of existing trade names with the end results in the legitimate owner suffering a huge loss. intention to resell it and/or encash the goodwill. Such practice is known as ‘Cybersquatting’. Registration of Domain names and METHODOLOGY acquiring a domain name of choice has become a rage over the time. It is the first come first get thing for getting registered. In The methodology opted by the researcher is “doctrinal”. this paper the researcher has explained what a cybersqatting is Such Doctrinal legal research has been carried out through alongwith various types of cybersquatting and its prevention and following sources such as International Treaties, Covenants targets. This paper also suggests remedial measures to deal with and Conventions; Constitutional Provisions; Information cybersquatting. The Anti Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), an enactment by United States, needs a special Technology Act, 2000; Trademarks Act, 1999; Copyrights applaud for being the first country to have introduced a special Act, 1957; ICANN, WIPO, UNDRP etc.; Reported act for dealing with the menace of cybersquatting which was the decisions of the courts and Secondary Sources such as need of the hour. It so happens that people opt to buy the domain Commentaries and reference books; Journals; Magazines; name from squatters as it being cheap instead of seeking remedy Newspaper articles; Official Statistics; Internet sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Technology Law
    Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel P.O. Box 7288, Springfield, IL 62791 IDC Quarterly Vol. 16, No. 3 (16.3.30) Technology Law By: Michael C. Bruck* Crisham & Kubes, Ltd. Chicago Jerry Falwell’s Ears are Burning - Gripe Sites, Domain Names, And Rejecting the Initial Interest Confusion Doctrine The ease and accessibility of the internet has made it an ideal place for people to create personal blogs, gripe sites, and rant forums. This broad-based expansion of personal communication has provided ample opportunity for internet users to share ideas and voice their opinions on an array of subjects. It also has generated substantial litigation involving same-name or similar name websites and their impact on free speech and trademark law. In late April, the Supreme Court denied certiorari to Lamparello v. Falwell, a case from the Fourth Circuit involving trademark infringement and cybersquatting that could have major implications for free speech and the impact of trademark law on the internet. 126 S. Ct. 1772 (2006). Background The Lamparello case, decided by the Fourth Circuit on August 24, 2005, centers around Reverend Jerry Falwell, “a nationally known minister who has been active as a commentator on politics and public affairs” who owns the trademarks “Jerry Falwell,” “Falwell,” “Listen America with Jerry Falwell,” and “www.falwell.com.” 420 F.3d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 2005). The plaintiff, Christopher Lamparello, created a website that responded to Falwell’s opinions about homosexuality. Id. Lamparello registered the domain name “www.fallwell.com,” which is one letter off the correct spelling of Jerry Falwell’s last name and website address.
    [Show full text]
  • UDRP Versus ACPA: Choosing the Right Tool to Challenge Cybersquatting by Connie L
    UDRP Versus ACPA: Choosing the Right Tool to Challenge Cybersquatting by connie l. ellerbach One of the most frequent sources of conflict on the Internet has of bad faith can be easily demonstrated. Complex disputes, resulted from the unauthorized registration and use of domain such as determining which of two users has superior rights to names containing other parties’ trademarks or company names, the mark contained in a domain, or where there are complicated a practice commonly referred to as cybersquatting. Fortunately, evidentiary issues, are beyond the scope of the UDRP. trademark law has evolved to offer a variety of increasingly Another drawback of UDRP proceedings is that due to the focused and effective remedies to address such abuses, two lack of evidentiary guidelines, lack of requirement to follow of the most recent of which are: the Internet Corporation for precedent, and the varying experience and political philosophy Assigned Names and Numbers’ Uniform Domain Name Dispute of the panelists, rulings can be unpredictable and inconsistent Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), and the federal Anticybersquatting with previous decisions addressing similar fact patterns. Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”). It is important that Nowhere has this been more true than in celebrity domain name trademark owners appreciate the strengths and weaknesses disputes. Compare Julia Fiona Roberts v. Russell Boyd, Case No. of each when selecting the appropriate forum to challenge the D2000-1210 (WIPO May 29, 2000) (awarding Ms. Roberts the registration of domains containing their trademarks. <juliaroberts.com> domain based on her common law service A. The UDRP mark rights in her name) with Reverend Dr.
    [Show full text]