The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”), 15 U.S.C. ' 1125(d)(1), prohibits registration of a domain name protected as a mark under the Lanham Act if the person: 1) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, and 2) registers a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name (emphasis added).
Re-registration of Current Domain Name By New Owner Not ACPA 'Registration'
The Ninth Circuit has now concluded that the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act does not apply to a domain name that is first registered prior to the time the trademark at issue becomes distinctive, even if the domain name is later re-registered by a new owner. However, the Ninth Circuit also held that the ACPA can apply to new domain names registered by the new owner after the mark acquires distinctiveness.
By
Judith L. GrubnerThis premium content is locked for The Intellectual Property Strategist subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN The Intellectual Property Strategist
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
