Thanks! You've successfully subscribed to the BONEZONE®/OMTEC® Monthly eNewsletter!

Please take a moment to tell us more about yourself and help us keep unwanted emails out of your inbox.

Choose one or more mailing lists:
BONEZONE/OMTEC Monthly eNewsletter
OMTEC Conference Updates
Advertising/Sponsorship Opportunities
Exhibiting Opportunities
* Indicates a required field.

Trademarks vs. Domain Names, Part II: There is a BIG Difference

Domain names that accurately reflect a company or its products and services are crucial for business success. When companies seek to secure a new domain name, they should be alarmed if evidence of cybersaquatting occurs.

Cybersquatting is registering, selling or using a domain name with the intent to profit from the goodwill of someone else’s trademark or name, and it can hurt a company’s brand. If a potential domain name is chosen and entered in a web browser but doesn’t connect to a functioning website, that is an indication that it may be owned by a cybersquatter. If you visit a site that states, “This domain name is for sale,” or “Can’t find server,” that’s another strong sign of cybersquatting.

As covered in Part I on this topic, victims can pay a cybersquatter for the domain name or file a complaint and use the arbitration system established by the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and its Uniform Domain Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). However, sometimes a lawsuit, though more expensive and time consuming, is needed.

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) (15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)) is a Federal law that became effective on November 29, 1999. Its intent was to give trademark owners and owners of famous trademarks a legal remedy against individuals who obtained a domain name “in bad faith”—that is, one identical or confusingly similar to their own trademark. For a famous mark, the law also protects against possible dilution of the mark.

To be successful in a lawsuit brought under the ACPA, the plaintiff must prove that: (1) the defendant had a “bad faith intent” to profit from the mark; (2) the defendant had registered, trafficked in or used a domain name that, in the case of a mark, was distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, identical or confusingly similar to that mark or, in the case of a famous mark that was famous at the time of obtaining the domain name, was identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of the mark; or (3) the trademark, word or name is protected by reason of two rather obscure Federal protection provisions. (If you want these, please This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. me via the address at the end of this article.) The “bad faith intent” is the key element, and the ACPA provides numerous factors that will be contemplated by the court when making that determination. These include, in part:

• Does the defendant have any intellectual property rights in the domain name? 

• Does the domain name consist of the legal name of the defendant, or a commonly-used name that identifies the defendant?

• Is there prior use by the defendant of the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of any goods or services?

• Is there bona fide fair use by the defendant of the mark in a site associated with the domain name?

• Did the defendants intend to divert consumers from the trademark owner’s online location to a site that is linked to the in-question domain name?

• Did the defendant offer to sell, transfer or assign the domain name to the mark owner for financial gain?


Security code