2024) (“A ‘cybersquatter’ is a person who knowingly obtains from a registrar a domain name consisting of the mark or name of a company for the purpose of ransoming the right to that domain name back to the legitimate owner for a price.”). [...] Code § 14330.37 Panavision also “alleged that Toeppen was in the business of stealing trademarks, registering them as domain names on the Internet and then selling the domain names to the rightful trademark owners.”38 The Federal District Court for the Central District of California and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in Panavision’s favor, holding that “potential cu. [...] owned a registration for its trademark IKEA in China at the time that the defendant registered the domain name “www.ikea.com.cn” in 1997.45 Ikea sued Guo Wang for trademark infringement.46 After two years of litigation, the Higher Court ruled in favor of Ikea on the grounds that “the defendant violated the fairness and good faith principles of Article 2 of the UCL and held the defendant liable for. [...] The ACPA provides that the trademark owner can file an in rem action against the domain name in the judicial district where the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority registered or assigned the domain name is located if: 1) the domain name violates any right of the trademark owner; and 2) the court finds that the owner/plaintiff is not able to obtain in persona. [...] 61 These factors are the following: (I) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name; (II) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person; (III) the person’s prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or s.
- Pages
- 65
- Published in
- United States of America
Table of Contents
- THE TRADEMARK REPORTER® 1
- MASTHEAD 2
- TABLE OF CONTENTS 3
- BACK TO THE FUTURE WITH BLOCKCHAIN DOMAIN NAMES: TOWARD A GLOBAL POLICY TO FIGHT CYBERSQUATTING IN WEB 3.0 4
- Table of Contents 4
- Introduction 6
- Part I. Existing Trademark Protection for Domain Names in Web 2.0 8
- A. Domain Names and Cybersquatting: Pre-Internet Framework and Landmark Cases 8
- B. The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) and Certain Foreign Anticybersquatting Laws 14
- C. UDRP and Other Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures for Web 2.0 Domain Names 20
- Part II. Global Challenges for Trademark Protection in Web 3.0: Blockchain Domain Names and Cybersquatting 26
- A. The Rise of the Blockchain Domain Name System as the Most Promising Alternative Domain Name System 26
- B. Cryptosquatting: Shortcomings of the Trademark Protection Framework in Web 3.0 33
- 1. Practical Barriers for Trademark Protection in Web 3.0 33
- 2. Legal Barriers for Trademark Protection in Web 3.0 40
- Part III. A Call for a New Regulation: Protecting Trademarks Against Cryptosquatters 49
- A. Proposals to Amend the U.S. Laws to Address Cryptosquatting 50
- 1. Proposals to Amend the ACPA 50
- 2. Secondary Liability: Assessing the Scope of the Liability of BDN Providers 51
- B. Certain Considerations Regarding International Regulations 53
- 1. Foreign Laws and Potential International Laws Addressing Cryptosquatting 53
- 2. International Contractual-based UDRP-like Rules and Procedures for BDNs 55
- C. Other Remedies and Self-regulation Initiatives in Web 3.0 56
- Conclusion 60
- BOOK REVIEW: PROSECUTING AND DEFENDING DOMAN NAME DISPUTES: EFFECTIVE LITIGATION STRATEGIES 62
- GUIDELINES FOR SUBMISSIONS TO THE TRADEMARK REPORTER 65
