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 for a free consultation. You may be entitled to recover your domain name through a cybersquatting case under the UDRP or the ACPA.
Then, in a decidedly unselfish move, Bosh donated the domains containing fellow professional basketball players’ names to the 
The 
The norm in recent court rulings involving 
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).”
against the Defendant Domain Name.
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.
Originally the Mattapoisett, MA, located Kavanaugh-Brownell Boat Stands, LLC (Kavanaugh) sued the Fairhaven, MA, located Brownell Trailers, LLC (BT) over use of the ‘BROWNELL’ trademark. In that first suit Judge Young presiding over the case determined that BT could continue to sell its boat stands under the ROK trademark so long as the mark made it clear to consumers that the products for sale were boat stands. BT then adopted the above ‘ROK’ trademark which was approved by Judge Young. In conjunction with adoption of the ROK mark, BT also registered and began use of 
