Cybersquatting & Domain Dispute Lawyer Attorney Law Firm

The Best Evidence of Bad Faith Intent to Profit when Proving a Violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act or ACPA defines cybersquatting in a very loose way, and in order to be found guilty of unlawful cybersquatting, in order that they show that you've engaged in bad faith cybersquatting with a bad faith intent to profit from their trademark, they're going to have to show that you intentionally targeted their trademark. Of course, many domainers use this bad faith intent to profit element as their defensive shield, because a domainer will say, "I didn't know about the trademark," or that, "I registered so many domains that I can't possibly determine what is trademarked."

Play: Bad Faith Intent to Profit when Proving a Violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
(click title to listen)

With: Enrico Schaefer

Sponsored by: Traverse Cybersquatting Law

---

Read Show Transcript

Publish to My Site

Share on My Networks

---

powered by Vertio.net

Cybersquatting Claims: Defending Allegations of Domain Name and Trademark Cybersquatting

You have been accused by threat letter, lawsuit or UDRP complaint of engaging in trademark cybersquatting.  The penalties for cybersquatting can be serious.  Statutory damages can be awarded under the Anti Cybersquatting Piracy Act (ACPA).  A Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Arbitration could result in forcible transfer of your otherwise valuable domain name to the complainant.

An internet law attorney has sent you a trademark infringement and cybersquatting threat letter demanding that you immediately transfer the domain, identify other domains in your domain portfolio that may infringe the alleged trademark and potentially pay money damages in exchange for a release of liability.  You need to know how to defend yourself against claims of cybersquatting and domain name trademark infringement. 

Top 5 Domainer Tips to Avoid Transfer Orders Under the UDRP

Enrico Schaefer discusses what domainers can do in order to avoid transfer orders under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), and lawsuits under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA).  In this short interview, Enrico provides several tips including understanding trademark law and how the UDRP and ACPA work, understanding your domain portfolio to know what domain names may be infringing and how to prepare ahead of time to avoid trademark issues, and the risks involved with parked pages.

Announcer:  Welcome to Cybersquatting Law Radio brought to by Traverse Cybersquatting Law, internet lawyers specializing in domain name dispute resolutions and all other domaining issues.

Damien Allen:  Good morning, and welcome to cybersquatting law radio.  My name is Damien Allen and joining me today is Enrico Schaefer of Traverse Legal.  Good morning, Enrico and welcome to the program.

Enrico Schaefer:  Good morning, Damien.

In Domain Name Disputes, Priority of Registration Will Often Trump Registered Trademark Rights

It isn’t often that a UDRP panel finds that a complainant who owns a registered trademark does not satisfy the first prong of the UDRP’s abusive registration test, namely, that the domain name is “identical or confusingly similar” to the complainant’s registered trademark.  Typically, UDRP panels will find that a trademark registration is prima facie evidence of confusing similarity.  But a recent panel has held that a complainant that registered its trademark after the respondent registered its domain name does not have the right to claim that the domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.  Priority, it seems, is everything.

Registering a Competitor's Trademark in a Domain Name is Never a Good Idea and Can Result in ACPA Damages and Injunction

It is never wise to register the trademark of a competitor in a domain name.  As Silver Ring found out, registering a competitor’s trademark in a domain name can subject you to the possibility of damages and a permanent injunction under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA).

How to Lose Under the UDRP Even When Respondent Fails to Respond

A WIPO decision under the UDRP dated January 4, 2008 illustrates that it is still possible to lose a UDRP arbitration even when Respondent fails to respond. WIPO and NAF arbitrators have an independent duty to review the complainant’s allegations in order to ensure that the elements under the UDRP are satisfied.

In Springborn Staffing Services, Inc. v. Choi Sungyeon, Complainant sought transfer of the disputed domain name czone.com.

Gripe Site & Cybersquatting Lawyers

Ever visited a website that has a domain name that includes "sucks" in it? How about a gripe site, or a web site that allegedly attacks, exposes, or complains about a person, company, service, or product? The amount of damage such a site can do to the individual or company whose trademark is contained in the domain name is staggering. Gripe sites are becoming more common.  The best way to protect your trademark or brand,a nd avoid domain disputes, is to defensively register the most common variations of your domain name so that cybersquatters are forced to register domains which don't include your trademark in the domain name. .