The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) safeguards trademark owners from bad faith domain registrations. It establishes a cause of action against those who register or use domain names similar to protected marks, covering both registered and unregistered trademarks.

ACPA claims require a distinctive mark, confusingly similar domain name, and bad faith intent to profit. Courts consider factors like trademark rights, legitimate use, and fair use. Remedies include injunctions, monetary damages, and domain transfer, with protections for good faith registrars.

Understanding the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA)

Purpose and provisions of ACPA

• ACPA protects trademark owners from cybersquatting and prevents bad faith registration of domain names (amazon.con, cocacola.net)
• Establishes cause of action for trademark owners against individuals who register, traffic in, or use domain names similar to protected marks
• Covers both registered and unregistered trademarks expanding protection beyond traditional trademark law
• Federal courts have jurisdiction over ACPA claims allowing for consistent application nationwide
• In rem jurisdiction permitted if defendant cannot be located enabling action against domain name itself

Elements of ACPA claims

• Plaintiff's mark must be distinctive or famous when domain was registered (Nike, Apple)
• Domain name identical or confusingly similar to plaintiff's mark (nikeshoes.com, i-phone.com)
• Defendant registered, trafficked in, or used domain name with bad faith intent to profit
• Bad faith factors considered:
  • Defendant's trademark rights in domain name
  • Domain name's relation to defendant's legal name
  • Prior use of domain for legitimate goods/services
  • Noncommercial or fair use of mark in accessible site

ACPA Application and Remedies

Case law on ACPA application

• Sporty's Farm L.L.C. v. Sportsman's Market, Inc. established retroactive application of ACPA to pre-existing disputes
• Virtual Works, Inc. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. clarified bad faith intent requirement emphasizing holistic factor analysis
• Coca-Cola Co. v. Purdy addressed use of famous marks in domain names for criticism distinguishing legitimate commentary from bad faith registration

Remedies for cybersquatting under ACPA

• Injunctive relief allows courts to order domain name forfeiture, cancellation, or transfer
• Monetary damages include actual damages and profits or statutory damages ($1,000 to $100,000 per domain)
• Attorney's fees available in exceptional cases incentivizing enforcement of trademark rights
• In rem actions permit action against domain name if owner unlocatable
• Limitations protect good faith domain registrars from liability preserving legitimate registration practices