Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d),(passed as part of Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 106–113 (text) (PDF)) is a U.S. law enacted in 1999 that established a cause of action for registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name confusingly similar to, or dilutive of, a trademark or personal name.[1][2] The law was designed to thwart "cybersquatters" who register Internet domain names containing trademarks with no intention of creating a legitimate web site, but instead plan to sell the domain name to the trademark owner or a third party.[3] Critics of the ACPA complain about the non-global scope of the Act and its potential to restrict free speech,[4] while others dispute these complaints. Before the ACPA was enacted, trademark owners relied heavily on the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA) to sue domain name registrants.[5] The FTDA was enacted in 1995 in part with the intent to curb domain name abuses.[6] The legislative history of the FTDA specifically mentions that trademark dilution in domain names was a matter of Congressional concern motivating the Act.[7] Senator Leahy stated that "it is my hope that this anti-dilution statute can help stem the use of deceptive Internet addresses taken by those who are choosing marks that are associated with the products and reputations of others".[7]

For example, in Panavision Int'l L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998), Dennis Toeppen registered the domain name Panavision.com. Panavision, the trademark owner, learned that Toeppen had registered its trademark when it attempted to register the trademark "Panavision" as a domain name.[8] Toeppen was using the domain panavision.com to display photographs of Pana, Illinois, and, when asked to cease, he offered to sell the domain name to Panavision for $13,000.[7] After Panavision refused to buy the domain name from Toeppen, he registered its other trademark, Panaflex, as a domain name.[7] The Court held that the FTDA could be violated without the traditional tarnishing or blurring the courts had required.[3] Rulings like this extended the FTDA substantially.

  1. ^ Jane C. Ginsberg, Trademark and Unfair Competition Law 748 (Robert C. Clark et al. eds., Foundation Press 4th ed. 2007)(2001)
  2. ^ Cybertelecom :: Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act Providing Legislative History, Caselaw, and References
  3. ^ a b 2-7A Gilson on Trademarks §7A.06, Trademark Cyberpiracy and Cybersquatting (Matthew Bender & Co. 2009)
  4. ^ Serena C. Hunn, Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act: A Powerful Remedy in Domain Name Disputes? Or a Threat to Electronic Commerce?, http://www.fmew.com/archive/cybersquat/index.html
  5. ^ 2-7A Gilson on Trademarks §7A.07, Domain Name Dilution (Matthew Bender & Co. 2009)
  6. ^ Panavision Int'l L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1326 (9th Cir. 1998)
  7. ^ a b c d Panavision Int'l L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1326 (9th Cir. 1998); TeleTech Customer Care Mgmt., Inc. v. Tele-Tech Co., 977 F. Supp. 1407, 1413 (C.D. Cal. 1997)
  8. ^ Panavision Int'l L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1319 (9th Cir. 1998)