About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

3 J. Legal Advoc. & Prac. 106 (2001)
Cybersquatting

handle is hein.journals/jlap3 and id is 112 raw text is: CYBERSQUATTING: I. INTRODUCTION The explosion of the Internet within the last fifteen years has cre- ated a mass system for communication and a new medium for business to flourish. The Internet has transformed drastically from the original tool created by the Department of Defense for communication with countries all over the world in case of emergencies. The Internet or information superhighway has developed into a new market for businesses, attracting millions of Internet users as potential customers. A company identifies and distinguishes itself on the Internet by registering a domain name, usually a well-known name or a registered trademark. Domain name registrations are allocated to persons by paying a nominal fee and filling out registration forms on a first come, first serve basis, irrespective of trademark rights in the name.' There- fore, no verification regarding trademark rights that may exist for the words in the domain name is mandatory.2 Since two domain name registrants cannot have two domain names spelled the same way, there has been a frenzy by individuals to register many well-known domain names. The problem arises when individuals register or re- serve domain names of a pre-existing trademark with the intent to resell. This phenomenon is called cybersquatting. Cybersquatters have been characterized as individuals who attempt to profit from the Internet by reserving and later reselling or licensing domain names back to the companies that spent millions of dollars developing the goodwill of the trademark.3 The courts have addressed the problem of cybersquatting by ap- plying traditional trademark infringement and dilution laws to claims brought by victims of cybersquatting. However, as trademark law proved to be inadequate in the Internet arena for providing a remedy for trademark owners, Congress passed the Anticybersquatting Con- sumers Protection Act (ACPA) in November of 1999.' The ACPA provides a specific cause of action for cybersquatting5 Congress elected to incorporate this cybersquatting cause of action within the 1. Sporty's Farm L.L.C. v. Sportsman's Mkt., Inc., 202 F.3d 489, 492 (2d Cir. 2000). 2. Id. 3. Intermatic Inc. v. Toeppen, 947 F. Supp. 1227, 1233-34 (N.D. Il. 1996). 4. Anti Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Pub.L. No. 106-113, §§ 3001-06, 3008. 5. Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(A).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most