Options for Combatting Infringing Domain Names

Internet Law

As Internet attorneys that regularly assist in domain name disputes, we are often what is the best method of combatting infringing domain names.

Trademark Owner’s Options

Trademark owners typically have two main options to combat domain names using their marks: filing a UDRP or domain dispute or filing a federal lawsuit under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protect Act or ACPA.

Cybersquatting

To establish a claim for cybersquatting, the trademark owner must prove the following three elements:

  1. The defendant registered in, trafficked, or used a domain name;
  2. That is identical or confusingly similar to a distinctive or famous mark;
  3. With a bad faith intent to profit.

If these elements are established, the plaintiff may recover actual damages or statutory damages in the amount of $100,000 per infringing domain name. Further, the court may award cancellation or transfer of the domain name to the plaintiff.

While there is significant upside in terms of monetary damages, ACPA claims are typically time consuming and expensive to litigate. However, some cases may present a fact pattern that permits Revision Legal to take the case on a contingency basis. As with any civil federal lawsuit, the parties can engage in lengthy discovery including depositions. The cases are typically decided by motion or live trials.

Domain Disputes

The elements for a UDRP or domain dispute action are substantially similar to the ACPA. Specifically, to prevail in a UDRP proceeding, the plaintiff (or complainant) must prove:

  1. The respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
  2. The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name;
  3. The respondent registered and is using the domain in bad faith.

Unlike the ACPA, the UDRP does not provide the opportunity for money damages. If the complainant prevails in a UDRP proceeding, the sole remedy is transfer of the domain. However, the benefit of the UDRP is the cost to file the claim is substantially lower and the final decision will be reached much faster.

The UDRP or domain dispute process is likely the best vehicle to use when a trademark owner finds domain names using his or her mark and quick recovery of those domains is the highest priority.

Conclusion

The choice between a UDRP and ACPA proceeding involves the weighing of multiple factors. Has the defendant acted in demonstrable bad faith? Is the defendant collectable? Does the plaintiff had the appetite to start a federal lawsuit? How strong is the underlying trademark? 

Trademark owners are best advised to seek the assistance of counsel to determine the best path to protect their trademark rights. To contact Revision Legal, simply complete the forms on this page or call 855-473-8474.

 

 

Extra, Extra!
Recent Posts

2025 Changes to Trademark Fees

2025 Changes to Trademark Fees

Trademark

There are some significant changes coming to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that will affect trademark filings beginning January 18, 2025. These changes include the introduction of the Trademark Center, new fees, and revised application requirements. Here is an overview of the key changes: The USPTO will retire the TEAS system, which […]

Read more about 2025 Changes to Trademark Fees

Automated Decision-Making Technology: California Releases Proposed Regulations

Automated Decision-Making Technology: California Releases Proposed Regulations

Internet Law

In today’s competitive e-commerce landscape, automated decision-making technology is becoming more and more important. From personalized product recommendations to targeted advertising and streamlined logistics, these systems help ecommerce businesses adapt and grow. But new regulations are on the horizon, and these changes could reshape the way e-commerce businesses use automation. The California Privacy Protection Agency […]

Read more about Automated Decision-Making Technology: California Releases Proposed Regulations

FTC Adopts Final “Click to Cancel Rule”

FTC Adopts Final “Click to Cancel Rule”

Internet Law

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued final amendments to its trade regulation rule concerning negative option plans, also known as the “click to cancel rule.” This rule aims to address widespread deceptive practices that prohibit customers from cancelling services in the same manner in which they signed up. Here’s a detailed summary of the […]

Read more about FTC Adopts Final “Click to Cancel Rule”

Put Revision Legal on your side