Posts Tagged ‘ACPA’

Healthcare Giant Novo Nordisk Loses its UDRP Challenge to FlexTouch.com

Monday, June 14th, 2010

Novo Nordisk is a giant in the Healthcare industry that has registered the FlexTouch trademark but before it could begin to use FlexTouch in conjunction with commercial purposes, Andrew Melcher of La Jolla, California, registered FlexTouch.com and began using it as a parking page supporting links to electronics and computers.

Novo Nordisk had registered the FlexTouch trademark with the commercial goal of advertising the FlexTouch product as an aid in pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of diabetes.trademark law

On March 19, 2010 the lone panelist Brigitte Joppich writing for the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center  in the WIPO case of Novo Nordisk A/S v. Andrew Melcher, Case No. D2010-0095, rendered an Administrative Panel Decision. That full decision can be found here.

Continue reading Healthcare Giant Novo Nordisk Loses its UDRP Challenge to FlexTouch.com »

Bad News for Google, Facing Typo-squatting Lawsuit After its Motion for Summary Judgment was Denied

Monday, June 14th, 2010

Last Wednesday the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’ Judge Blanche M. Manning handed down a decision to deny Google’s motion for summary judgment for a case that has been ongoing since 2007.

Judge Manning ruled that there were issues of material fact remaining pertaining to Google’s use of its AdSense program, in conjunction with the company Dotster, to display ads on domain names which are allegedly confusingly similar to registered trademarks. Google may still be found liable for damages because the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA)  imposes liability on anyone who licenses and uses sites with domain names similar to registered trademarks.

typosquatting lawsuit

Google’s AdSense program involved licensing domains from the domain registrar Dotster that were similar to registered trademarks and using those domains to display pay-per-click ads.

Continue reading Bad News for Google, Facing Typo-squatting Lawsuit After its Motion for Summary Judgment was Denied »

Famous Piano Maker ‘Steinway’ Loses Cybersquatting Case Against Alleged Cybersquatter

Monday, June 7th, 2010

cybersquatting caseIn news posted on June 2nd, the famous maker of pianos, Steinway, lost a cybersquatting case over control of the website www.american-steinway.com.

The case of Steinway, Inc. v. Carey Simon, is very shortly and aptly summarized at Cybersquatting.com;

“Steinway, Inc. the acclaimed manufacturer of pianos, recently lost a cybersquatting action to recover the domain name www.american-steinway.com, While the cybersquatting panel found that Steinway had a federal trademark registration for the STEINWAY way, the panel also found that the registrant of the domain name had been in the business of buying, restoring, and selling Steinway pianos for several years, and had used the domain name in its nominative sense. Therefore the panel found that the registrant had rights in the STEINWAY mark and did not use the domain name in bad faith. Thus, the panel denied Steinway’s claim.” Continue reading Famous Piano Maker ‘Steinway’ Loses Cybersquatting Case Against Alleged Cybersquatter »

Domains Attached to a Legal Judgment Accidently Auctioned Off on NameJet, Catching $65,000

Monday, June 7th, 2010

On June 4th over at Domainnamewire, an article was posted about a surprise auction of domain names, all largely based on misspellings of ‘government grants’ and variations thereof, totaling $65,000. These domain names were sold on May 25th at NameJet, and were all previously domains registered at Network Solutions.

The unusual story behind the sale of these domain names began with a judgment (later reaffirmed) against the notorious cybersquatter John Zuccarini. Back in October of 2000, the US DC for the ED of Pennsylvania rendered a $500,000 verdict against Zuccarini for violating the Truth in Domain Names Act. That decision can be found here. The US CoA for the 3rd Circuit affirmed the trial court’s decision on June 15, 2001 and ordered Zuccarini to pay additional statutory damages totaling $50,000.

That decision can be found here.

The courts found those judgments against Zuccarini were proper because in addition to ‘typo squatting’ on popular trademarks such as Hot Wheels, Cartoon Network, and Homestar Runner, he was also embroiled in the unsavory practice of redirecting traffic from young audience websites to websites containing child pornography. This practice is in direct violation of the Truth in Domain Names Act and was a substantial stimulus in passing the act. Continue reading Domains Attached to a Legal Judgment Accidently Auctioned Off on NameJet, Catching $65,000 »

Film Academy Targets GoDaddy in Cybersquatting Lawsuit, Over 100 Domain Names at Issue and up to $10 million in Potential Damages

Thursday, June 3rd, 2010

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, (Film Academy) has recently filed a 134 page complaint against GoDaddy.com, for trafficking in unauthorized trademarks.

GoDaddy.com is a supergiant in the domain registration business and is also the same brain behind the memorable 2009 Super Bowl ad, which featured the star female race car driver Danica Patrick.cybersquatting lawyers

The Hollywood Reporter noted that the over 100 domain names targeted in the suit mostly involve the Film Academy’s prestigious and trademarked “Oscars”. Targeted domain name examples include 2011oscars.com, academyawardz.com, jaylenososcars.com, betacademyawards.com, oscarsunplugged.com, oscarshotels.com, oscarstravel.com, oscarsliveblogging.com. Continue reading Film Academy Targets GoDaddy in Cybersquatting Lawsuit, Over 100 Domain Names at Issue and up to $10 million in Potential Damages »

Domain Name Owner Wins His Expenses In Cybersquatting Case

Wednesday, October 7th, 2009

A domain name owner recently won his expenses in a cybersquatting case in federal court. 

Domain Name Wire reports that Neon Network has been awarded its expenses after it won a default judgment in a declaratory judgment action under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) in Arizona.  Aspis Liv Forsakrings, an insurance company, originally filed a cybersquatting case under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) against Neon Network with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

WIPO found that Neon had registered the domain name in bad faith, and the aspis.com domain name was transferred to Aspis.

Neon Network then filed a declaratory judgment action in Arizona asking the court to determine that it had not violated the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.  The judge issued a default judgment against Aspis and awarded Neon $1,547. 

The judgment can be viewed here, courtesy of Domain Name Wire.

Attorneys Handling Cybersquatting Cases Under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA)

Monday, 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.