Essay on Cybersquattig Article

686 Words Jan 27th, 2012 3 Pages
What a cybersquatting! Ford wins back its domain

Cybersquatting trend is growth with each year. Matthew Lasar, 2010 was a bumper year for cybersquatting cases, Arshtechnica, April 5, 2011, referred to the jump “of 28% over 2009 and 16% more than 2008, which was itself a record year”[i].
Meanwhile, the companies in the U.S. have an effective tool to prevent the misuse of their trademarks in another’s domain: Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C.A. 1125(d) (Supp. 2000), or the “ACPA”. Effective as of November 29, 1999, ACPA “was intended to prevent ‘cybersquatting’, an expression that has come to mean the bad faith, with the intent to profit from the goodwill associated with those trademarks”, Shields v. Zuccarini, 254
…show more content…
Per the court, see Id. at +4: “Registering a famous trademark as a domain name and then offering it for sale to the trademark owner is exactly the wrong Congress intended to remedy when it passed the ACPA.”
The appellate Catalanotte registered the domain in January 1997, when he knew Ford published an employee newspaper called “Ford World”, [which is prior to ACPA enactment]. Catalanotte sent an email to two Ford officials in October of 2000 stating, Id. at +4:

“The domain name will be available for a short period of time… I have been receiving offers from various sources, including the competition. I have indicated to the other interested parties that I am extending this opportunity to you first before any decisions are to be made.”

In rejecting the defenses asserted based upon the fact that Catalanotte had registered the domain name prior to enaction of the ACPA, the court held that “registering,” “trafficking” and “using” a domain name are each separate offenses. Thus, the fact that the domain name was registered before the passage of the statute did not serve as a defense to a claim for liability for subsequent trafficking or use.

Similarly, from the angle of bad faith (or willful intent), in People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359, (4th Cir. 2001): because the appellate Doughney made statements suggesting that the appellant PETA should "settle" with him and "make him an offer" [to

Related Documents