October 5th, 2009
Traverse Legal’s internet attorneys are handling some of the largest Cybersquatting Cases ever filed – Contact us at 866.936.7447. Our internet law lawyers can help you protect and defend your valuable domain names.
Internet law is complex because courts are not familiar with internet technology or the special laws passed by Congress to create special rights for companies doing business on the internet. Internet attorneys who specialize in internet law issues are critical in pursuing your legal rights. For instance, domain names can be incredible assets for a business. Like a well placed piece of commercial real estate, domain names can be the key to turning a dwindling business into a healthy and vibrant economic powerhouse. A well thought out and developed domain name can increase sales, increase brand recognition, and extend a business’ reach across international borders. Cybersquatting and cybersquatters seek to profit from the inherent value that domain names provide to trademark holders. Cybersquatters and, more specifically, typosquatters will, for example, register domain names that are common misspellings or typographical errors of a business’ trademark to siphon off the web traffic and goodwill that a trademark owner has created in its brand and domain name.
Cybersquatting cases can be filed through two similar methods. The first is the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). The UDRP is a contract created by ICANN that every domain name registrant of a major top-level domain name (.com, .net, or .org) must agree to in order to register a domain name. Under this contract, the registrant agrees to have disputes over the domain name, specifically disputes over the abusive registration of a domain name, decided by arbitration under the Policy. These arbitration proceedings are typically brought in front of the National Arbitration Forum or the World Intellectual Property Organization.
The second method is the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). The ACPA allows a plaintiff to bring a cybersquatting case in federal court against a person that registers or uses a domain name in bad faith that is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or the personal name of the plaintiff. This remedy allows the plaintiff to seek statutory damages of up to $100,000 per domain name and attorneys fees in exceptional circumstances. Additionally, a plaintiff can bring an in rem suit against foreign defendants to recover a domain name that was registered with a registrar or registered through a registry located on US soil, but monetary damages are not available in an in rem suit under the ACPA.
If you are faced with a cybersquatting case under the UDRP or the ACPA, contact one of our cybersquatting attorneys today. You may be entitled to recover your domain name through a cybersquatting case under the UDRP or the ACPA.
February 13th, 2013
Traverse Legal wins another cybersquatting case on behalf of its client and secures one of the largest judgments ever awarded under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA).
November 8th, 2011
As reported on Domain Name Wire, The Gap, Inc. has filed a cybersquatting case against TheGap.com under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). The complaint alleges that TheGap.com redirects visitors to websites that are designed to deceive consumers into believing the sites belong to The Gap, Inc.” or are affiliated with or sponsored by” The Gap, Inc.
“More specifically, the thegap.com domain name forwards visitors to sites that promise a substantial gift card to Gap’s stores in exhange for entry of personal information and completion of unidentified “sponsor offers.”"
The full complaint can be read below:
Continue reading Latest Cybersqautting Case under ACPA »
September 10th, 2010
The Miami Heat’s Chris Bosh hired an intellectual property attorney team to wrest control of domain names containing his name and other professional basketball players’ names away from a serial cybersquatter.
Then, in a decidedly unselfish move, Bosh donated the domains containing fellow professional basketball players’ names to the National Basketball Players Association for safekeeping and with instructions to give control of the domains to the rightful owners (those players whose names had been cybersquatted).
Bosh’s legal team was able to acquire approximately 600 domain names that had previously been unlawfully cybersquatted by a dishonest entrepreneur who was using the domains to generate revenue.
For more resources on cybersquatting look here:
• Domain Dispute Cybersquatting Lawsuits
Continue reading Cybersquatting Victory: Chris Bosh Wins Some 600 Cybersquatted Domain Names and Turns Them Over to the NBPA »
August 20th, 2010
In an article posted on Thursday on Xbix, the dispute between two adult fan-show giants, Exxxotica and Adultcon was highlighted. The adult entertainment companies are gearing up to square off against each other in court in a dispute over ownership and use of 19 allegedly infringing domain names.
The cybersquatting lawsuit was filed this earlier this summer in June by Exxxotica. Exxxotica is seeking the maximum statutory damage award ($100,000 for each cybersquatted domain name) under the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA).
The dispute between the adult fan-show companies has at its epicenter the Los Angeles Convention Center, where Adultcon has been holding shows for years. However, this year Exxxotica decided to expand its fan base (which normally is covered by Exxxotica shows in Miami and New Jersey) into the L.A. market by scheduling a show at the same venue Adultcon has been regularly hosting adult show events.
Continue reading Cybersquatting Over Trademark Rights in Domain Names: Adultcon Says Exxotica’s Trademark is Generic »
August 12th, 2010
This case flies in the face of a seemingly growing trend in cybersquatting domain name disputes. More often than not, when a large company challenges ownership of a domain name that bears the company’s trademark somewhere in the web address that company is awarded the ‘infringing’ domain name. Actually, this is exactly what happened initially in the dispute over ownership of www.Canadian.biz.
The norm in recent court rulings involving internet litigation has been to reinforce a trend in cybersquatting disputes being decided in favor of large companies. Following are some examples of representative of this trend;
* ArcelorMittal Awarded 5 Cybersquatted Domain Names in WIPO Arbitration Proceeding
* Metropark USA Wins Default ‘in rem’ Cybersquatting Judgment
* Verizon’s Landmark Cybersquatting Victories in the US Courts
* BMEZine Contests Ownership BME.com
Continue reading Molson Loses Cybersquatting Judgment and Ordered to Pay Attorney’s Fees in the Ontario Superior Court After Previously Winning Arbitration Domain Name Dispute »
August 9th, 2010
Ranking in at 99th on the 2010 Fortune Global 500 list, the largest steel producing company in the world won a cybersquatting judgment in a World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) dispute arbitration proceeding. In 2007 alone, The Avenue de la Liberté, Luxembourg headquartered ArcelorMittal produced 116 million tonnes of crude steel representing 10% of the world’s steel output.
In its complaint arguing for the panel to recognize the uniqueness of the ‘ARCELOR’ mark, ArcelorMittal stated, “It has no meaning in English or in any other language. A Google search of the word “arcelor” displays several results, all related to the complainant (ArcelorMittal).”
Continue reading The Worlds Largest Steel Producing Company ArcelorMittal Awarded 5 Cybersquatted Domain Names in WIPO Dispute Arbitration Proceeding »
August 6th, 2010
There is a proposed court order, still currently under consideration, to the effect that John Zuccarini’s remaining domain names will be sold at the TRAFFIC conference in Dublin taking place in October. The Zuccarini domain names would be sold to settle tax liens and a cybersquatting judgment against Zuccarini brought by Office Depot.
Apparently Zuccarini has contacted auction promoter Rick Latona and TRAFFIC organizers Rick Schwartz and Howard Neu, with threats of legal action if they proceed with auctioning off the remaining domain names.
In response to the letters, Henry M. Burgoyne of Kronenberger Burgoyne, LLP, filed an application of contempt of court (PDF – courtesy of DomainNameWire) by Zuccarini for allegedly interfering with the auction plans.
Continue reading Cybersquatting Cases Update: Zuccarini Threatens Legal Action Against Auctioneers Readying to Auction Off His Remaining Domain Names »
August 6th, 2010
U.S. Magistrate Judge Theresa Carroll Buchanan granted Plaintiff Metropark USA a permanent injunction transferring ownership of Defendant www.Metropark.net in the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protect Act and federal trademark infringement in the case Metropark United States v. Metropark, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78674 (D. Va. 2010).
The decision (but because it is a Magistrate ruling it is really only a recommendation) was rendered and entered in default on July 8, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Virginia. In this federal cybersquatting claim, the D.C. for the E.D. Virginia exercised in rem jurisdiction over Defendant Domain Name www.Metropark.net and because the Domain Name registrant failed to reply to the complaint or otherwise appear before the court in these proceedings the Magistrate judge entered her recommendation in a default ruling against the Defendant Domain Name.
Brief history of the parties involved;
Continue reading Metropark USA Wins Domain Name from a Cybersquatter in in rem Default Judgment »
August 2nd, 2010
The Digby Adler Group LLC v. Image Rent a Car, Inc. decision rendered on July 20, 2010, presented a great opportunity to examine personal jurisdiction analysis in relation to a cybersquatting claim.
The case is Digby Adler Group LLC v. Image Rent a Car, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76309, 1-2 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2010). Plaintiff Digby Adler Group LLC (Adler) originally filed suit in federal district court in the Northern District of California against Defendants Image Rent A Car, Inc. (Image) and Van Rental Co., Inc. (Van Rental), alleging cybersquatting, unfair competition, and false advertising under the Lahnam Act, as well as common law trademark infringement and violation of Section 17200 of California’s Business and Professions Code.
The instant decision was for a Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Venue to the Eastern District of New York and was issued by U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti.
Brief background of the parties involved;
Continue reading Analysis of Personal Jurisdiction in a Claim for Cybersquatting Under the ACPA and the Lanham Act »