Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
According to the federal statute designed to prevent the practice, cybersquatting is the act of “registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else.” In a typical scenario, the cybersquatter offers to sell the domain name to the entity associated with the particular trademark for an inflated price. This offer to sell is sometimes viewed as evincing bad faith and therefore actionable in court if the owner wishes. In other instances, the offer is considered reasonable, or at least not indicative of bad faith, and therefore the trademark owner is forced to either purchase the domain or accept the consequences of the existence of a substantially similar domain name.
The ACPA
This dilemma can create difficulties for intellectual property owners such as those in the entertainment industry. If they wish to sue, various mechanisms exist that purport to combat cybersquatting. Most prominent of those is the statute quoted above, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. '1125(d). The purpose behind the ACPA is to “provide clarity in the law for trademark owners by prohibiting bad faith and abusive registration of distinctive marks as Internet domain names.”
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.