“Cybersquatting involves the registration as domain names of well-known trademarks by non-trademark holders who then try to sell the names back to the trademark owners.” Sporty’s Farm L.L.C. v. Sportsman’s Mkt, Inc., 202 F.3d 489, 493 (2d Cir. 2000).
What is the purpose of the law?
The Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act “was passed ‘to protect consumers and American businesses, to promote the growth of online commerce, and to provide clarity in the law for trademark owners by prohibiting the bad-faith and abusive registration of distinctive marks as Internet domain names with the intent to profit from the goodwill associated with such marks . . . .’” (S. Rep. No. 106-140, at 4 (1999)).
How is cybersquatting proved?
To prove cybersquatting, a plaintiff must prove four elements:
(1) Defendants registered, trafficked in or used a domain name;
(2) that was identical or confusingly similar to Plaintiffs’ mark;
(3) Plaintiffs’ mark, at the time Defendants registered their domain name, was distinctive; and
(4) Defendants committed these acts with a bad faith intent to profit from Plaintiffs’ mark.
Cybersquating Law
What is Cybersquatting?
“Cybersquatting involves the registration as domain names of well-known trademarks by non-trademark holders who then try to sell the names back to the trademark owners.” Sporty’s Farm L.L.C. v. Sportsman’s Mkt, Inc., 202 F.3d 489, 493 (2d Cir. 2000).
What is the purpose of the law?
The Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act “was passed ‘to protect consumers and American businesses, to promote the growth of online commerce, and to provide clarity in the law for trademark owners by prohibiting the bad-faith and abusive registration of distinctive marks as Internet domain names with the intent to profit from the goodwill associated with such marks . . . .’” (S. Rep. No. 106-140, at 4 (1999)).
How is cybersquatting proved?
To prove cybersquatting, a plaintiff must prove four elements:
(1) Defendants registered, trafficked in or used a domain name;
(2) that was identical or confusingly similar to Plaintiffs’ mark;
(3) Plaintiffs’ mark, at the time Defendants registered their domain name, was distinctive; and
(4) Defendants committed these acts with a bad faith intent to profit from Plaintiffs’ mark.
15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(A)
Case Examples
Hamptons Locations (2009).