The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) makes it illegal to register, use, or traffic in a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a distinctive mark, or that is identical or confusingly similar to, or dilutive of, a famous mark, with a “bad faith intent to profit” from the mark.
As emphasized above, the plaintiff’s mark must be distinctive or famous to give rise to a claim under the ACPA, among other factors. However, a plaintiff need not have registered its mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to file a claim under the ACPA. Instead, the plaintiff must prove that she was the first to use the mark in commerce.
The ACPA adopted the distinctiveness requirement from trademark law. In a typical trademark infringement claim, a trademark must be sufficiently distinctive or have acquired distinctiveness to merit protection. Taking that principle a step further, the ACPA mandates that a trademark must have been distinctive at the time that the infringing domain name was registered in order for a claim to move forward.
To determine whether a mark is distinctive or famous, a court may consider many factors, which include, but are not limited to:
the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the mark
the duration and extent of its use
the duration and extent of advertising and publicity
the geographical area in which the mark is used
the channels of trade
the degree of recognition of these marks in the parties’ channels of trade
the nature and extent of third-party use of the same or similar marks
whether the mark is federally registered
It’s important to recognize that distinctiveness and fame are different concepts. A mark may be distinctive and yet not be famous, or a famous mark may be considered distinctive only because it’s famous. When evaluating a mark’s distinctiveness, courts evaluate whether the mark serves to identify in the minds of consumers the origin of the product or service sold under it. If so, then it’s likely a distinctive mark, provided the mark isn’t found to be descriptive or generic.
On the other hand, a mark’s “fame” is a measure of how widely known and recognized the mark is to consumers. Companies that heavily advertise their marks, such that the marks are known throughout the world, would likely qualify as “famous” marks. You can probably call several marks to mind that a court would deem famous.
If you’re considering registering your trademark as a domain name, or if you think someone has violated the ACPA by using your mark as a domain name, contact Revision Legal’s experienced Internet attorneys here or call 855-473-8474.
The holders of copyrights for newspapers, magazines, books, and other publications are involved in numerous legal battles with owners of AI modules over alleged copyright infringement. The plaintiff copyright owners claim that the AI large language modules have been trained on huge quantities of copyrighted materials without permission and — most importantly — without payment. […]
The owners of most small, closely-held businesses negotiate and sign some form of an “Owner’s Agreement.” An important part of such Agreements is the “Buy-Sell” provisions. These are often some of the most difficult to negotiate. The gist of the buy-sell part of the Owners’ Agreement is to establish the rules for what happens if […]
Social media content moderation by technology platforms was one of the “hot” legal topics in 2023-2024. Three States — California, Texas, and Florida — passed different statutes to either require more content moderation (California) or to limit such moderation (Texas and Florida). All the statutes, in one way or another, demanded more transparency and information […]
