CHEAP VPS - From $2.90/Month | Cheap Dedicated Servers - From $29/Month
 

The Acpa: domain name trademark infringement

August 2nd, 2009

Our law firm has received a lot of people who phone and corporate networks are a threat to the anti-squatting Consumer Protection Act claim, the domain name registration, because they are the same or similar people of the holder of brand. Inevitably, we have heard the words "Network Solutions registered domain name, let me, so there is no way people can say that I have nothing wrong."
  Of course, Network Solutions and the other is not registered in order to ensure that any person who has registered the domain name is a legitimate right to do so. In real life, the responsibility to ensure that you have a legitimate right to the domain name is in their hands. Only one thing to do is to register the purchase of the domain name of each person, who do not interfere with the legitimate rights of the trademarks of others. As long as there is the ability to register the domain name does not reflect the rights, but this does not mean that you can not do so in conformity with the pursuit of the United States Federal law.
ACPA is a federal law came into force in November 1999 in order to avoid damaging the registration of the domain name. Domain Name Dispute this new law is to allow trademark owners of the service marks and remedies against the defendant, who obtained the domain name "Evil" is identical or confusing similar to trademarks or service marks .
  When it comes to disputes ACPA (these cases are usually referred to as "network squatting"), the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a malicious intent to profit mark is identical or similar to the plaintiff or trademark dilution. A key factor in any case, it is "malicious" intent of the accused, which is designed by the mark. "
  What does the "good faith" registration, the registration of the domain name only, and its non-commercial, it will be very difficult if not impossible, to prove that plaintiff bad faith, the domain name transfer. Under normal circumstances, the profit shown the intention to use the domain as a commercial site selling products or services. Domain name for an alleged violation of the establishment of a website that no bad faith intent to profit is shown that when the defendant tried to sell the domain name holder of a registered trademark. Any transfer of domain names are generally considered to meet the test of profit.
  Another factor is the registration harmful, if the provision of false contact information to the Registrar or the inability to maintain correct contact information below. As a result of this bad faith factor, it is important that all owners of the domain name to regularly check their domain name registration database at the WHO in order to determine their contact information is correct.
  If you choose to submit ACPA lawsuit, you have a variety of remedies are available under the Act. The most important thing is the potential for revocation or cancellation of the domain name or transfer the domain name for the actor. Instead of the actual loss, the plaintiff can choose the criteria for compensation and, where appropriate, between U.S. $ 1000 reward, and 10 million in compensation for the bad faith registration. Legal fees can also be registered in bad faith.
  In some cases, the owners of the domain can not be found or served with a summons and complaint, because they have to provide false information or not based in the United States. In these circumstances, the trademark owner can bring "real right" action against the domain name in the jurisdiction of the domain registrar, domain name registration or other authority, domain name registration or domain name specified . Monetary compensation is not available in a "property rights" litigation. Under normal circumstances, the owner of the brand is more focused on the transfer of the domain name for them and for the compensation.
  A recent case, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, interactive products, Inc. v. A2Z Mobile Office, No 01-3590 (Sixth Circuit Court., 10 April 2003), it is not good news, the proprietor of the mark in our power range. The court stated that "after the domain of the URL path (sub-directory of the files) … In general does not mean that the source (goods or services). Just shows the path after the domain of the website data held within the computer's host file. "
  Therefore, the existence of the Sixth Circuit held the applicant's mark in the path of the domain name is impossible for competitors to confuse consumers, rather than a violation of their rights. It is interesting to note that the Court reached this result even if the defendant A2Z, sales of competitive products. Even if it is a source of rights, trademark registration, it should be noted that the circuit court is not free to use the trademarks of others in the top-level domain, the site itself, or meta tag, the responsibility of ACPA.
  ACPA every detail, the facts of the case open. It should also be noted, interactive products the plaintiff has not provided any evidence to prove the existence of its mark in the post-domain path caused by actual confusion or is likely to create confusion. If there is no such evidence was presented, the results may vary. ACPA in one of the main weapons, brand owners to protect their intellectual property rights in the cyber world. You can protect your brand, you may lose the right to these trademarks. In addition, if not to protect your brand, who?