|

In 1997,
the United States Congress enacted the Anticybersquatting Consumer
Protection Act ("ACPA"). This Act is a part of the Lanham Act,
which protects against trademark infringement and unfair
competition. If you have been directed to this page, it may be
because you have registered, held, used, offered for sale, sold or
requested payment in connection with an internet domain.
A trademark is
any word, term, name,
symbol, slogan, package design product configuration, or device, or
any combination thereof, used to identify goods and/or services and
distinguish them from others in the market place or in trade.
Even
a sound, color combination, fragrance or hologram can be a trademark
under some circumstances. The term trademark is often used
interchangeably to identify a trademark or service mark.
A
domain name which incorporates the trademark of another may be an
infringing or illegal domain name. Trademarks are
valuable rights to their owners and federal law fully protects
against the infringing use of those marks by others. Use of
mark as a part or whole of a domain name can constitute trademark
use. Federal law provides for immediate injunction against
infringing use (without the necessity of a trial) and also
provides for statutory damages of up to $100,000 per domain.
Plain and
simple, your involvement in illegal internet domains can cost you
dearly, ruin your business, and destroy your reputation. Some
recent Court decisions have also held the following:
Half
Million Dollar Mistake: On October 30, 2000, the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ordered
Defendant Zuccarini to pay statutory damages of $500,000 (plus
$30,653 in attorneys' fees and costs) arising from five domain
names he acquired and used in violation of the Act.
barbiesclothing.com: The United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ney York found that Defendant in Mattel
v. Adventure Apparel violated federal law by registering the domain
names "barbiesbeachwear.com" and "barbiesclothing.com," even though
the accused party had sold only $10 in merchandise via the
infringing domains. A court order was entered against the
Defendants, the domains were taken away and the the Defendants were
ordered to pay damages to Mattel, the holder of the BARBIE
trademark.
earnestandjuliogallo.com: In E. and J. Gallo Winery v.
Spider Webs Ltd., et al., the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas entered an injunction against the
Defendants preventing them from continuing to use the
domain name ernestandjuliogallo.com, and ordering the transfer
of the domain to plaintiff E. and J. Gallo Winery ("Gallo"),
which holds a trademark in the mark "Ernest and Julio Gallo."
The court required the Defendants to pay damages under the
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, even though the
Defendants used their web site simply to public commentary and
articles critical of alcohol consumption.
Injunction and damages: n International Bancorp, L.L.C. v.
Societe des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers a Monaco,
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia entered judgment against the Defendant for registering
a domain name that incorporated the “Casino de Monte Carlo" name
into the domain. In addition, the Court ordered the
accused party to pay $100,000 in damages.
The statistics heavily favor the trademark owner: Since
the enactment of this Act, over 1,000 decisions have been
issued, seventy-seven percent of which were in favor of the
trademark owner.
A court is
likely to decide that a domain name registrant acquired or used the
name in bad faith if the motive to register the domain was
commercial gain, if s/he sought to divert customers from
a trademark owner to another that, either for purposes of commercial
gain or to tarnish the mark, could harm the goodwill belonging to
the trademark owner. If someone is deriving commercial gain
because of, in part, the presence of another's trademark in a
domain name, a court may find that to be evidence of bad faith.
A court will almost certainly find bad faith if the domain name
holder attempts to sell, rent, license, or charge other
fees, to either the trademark owner or someone else, without
having used it or without intending to use it, or having used it
improperly. A court is also likely to find bad faith if the
name holder provides false or misleading identification information
when applying for registration, or if the holder fails to
accurately update this information. A court will also frown upon
a prior history of registering domains containing the
trademarks of others. Finally, a court is likely to find bad
faith if the person registers a number of names which are
identical or similar to trademarks.
Being
the first to register a domain name does not grant special
protection if the domain violates the law. The internet is no
different from any other environment when it comes to using
trademarks which belong to someone else. The question is not
who registered the domain first, but rather, does the trademark in
the domain name belong to someone else? Consider whether using
that trademark in a "non electronic" forum would violate the
trademark owners rights. Because the use occurs "on the
internet" does not make it lawful.
Trademark law
requires only that there is "confusing similarity" between the
trademark and the accused domain name in order to find infringement.
Corrupted spellings, phonetic similarities, "typo" spellings,
meaning equivalents, can all count as confusingly similar according
to the law. For example,
the
following domain names have been found to be confusingly similar
with the complainant's trademarks:
|
THIS "DIFFERENT" DOMAIN WAS |
RULED CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO THIS TRADEMARK |
| |
|
|
americanonline.com |
AMERICAONLINE |
|
aolgirls.com |
AOL |
|
homail.com |
HOTMAIL |
|
hotmai.com |
HOTMAIL |
|
jahu.com |
YAHOO!, |
|
youhoo.com |
YAHOO!, |
|
ticktmasters.com |
TICKETMASTERS |
|
bostonyahoo.com |
YAHOO!, |
Although a
domain dispute can lead to great expense, and the incurring of
substantial attorney fees, it may be that the person sending notice
of the problem may be agreeable to resolving the matter in a simple
way and at relatively little cost. In this regard, the
transferring of the disputed domain to the party who hold the
trademark rights, may resolve the matter completely.
The domain's
registry (netsol.com, register.com, dotster.com, godaddy.com, etc.)
all have simple procedures for transferring a domain,
The procedures can be accessed by visiting the registrar's web site,
then selecting "transfer your domains".
|
|