Despite the simple functionality at many levels of a domain name, it is essential to a successful online business. In his heart, a domain name is an address, in essence, that the user of the Internet explains how to find a particular website. In many cases, the owners of trademarks or service marks of their use as part of their domain name business. However, there may be many instances where someone else to use, starting with the trade or service mark as part of another domain. With this in mind, though, it is for trade and service mark owners to control to ensure that others do not abuse their intellectual property in the registration of domain names.
Regardless of how the use the domain name is actually discovered, trade or service mark owners have two basic options for resolving disputes over domain names. First, a person or company to take action under the Uniform Dispute Domain Name. The advantages of this method is that it is relatively quick and relatively inexpensive. There are also disadvantages that this process is not available to contain all the domain names, it is not appropriate for licensing and litigation for damages and attorney fees can not be recovered by this method.
The other provision of a person or company that has been treated unfairly or violated with respect to a domain name related issue is the fight against cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”) believes. The ACPA was enacted in 1999 and was designed to prevent cybersquatting on the Internet.
Cybersquatting is generally considered the use of domain names that are confusingly similar to trademarks and service marks of other companies or individuals belong.
The responsibility of ACPA, the holder of the domain name itself (or its licensees to be imposed) if the person has taken the following measures:
(I) has a bad faith intent to profit from the mark, and
(Ii) registers, traffics or uses a domain name identical or similar to the mark and the mark (or dilutive when the brand is known) is a distinctive (or known) at the domain registration.
The ACPA does not create a series of nine factors that the court can not be excluded in the work to determine whether a person or entity acted in bad faith to use, has a bad intention in respect of a name registration field. The ACPA provides that “the intention of bad faith … is not in all cases in which the Court finds that the person believed and had reason to believe that the use of the domain name of a legal or equitable use has been.
For example, should show the actual trade or own the service mark, the disputed domain name confusingly similar to its own trade or service mark. But the question is a domain name and trade or service will be compared under the CSPA mark. Under the ACPA, the proper analysis of whether Respondent’s domain name so similar to the plaintiff’s trade or service marks that the two could be confused by one third.
When the owner is successful in the action, the court rescinds the cancellation or transfer of the domain name. The trademark owner can recover the profits of the defendant, the damages suffered by the owner of the mark and the cost of its operations.
Under the Act, the trademark owner to choose statutory damages instead of actual damages and profits. The Court may award statutory damages of $ 1,000 and $ 100,000 per domain name.
Information to be made by the ACPA and the UDRP, there are two possibilities, trade and service mark owners seeking to protect their brand from others used in bad faith.
Tags: AntiCybersquatting, Consumer, Domain, Name, Protecting, Protection, Understanding