Cybersquatting, the UDRP, ACPA, and Gripe Sites

From Brian's Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search



  • Use this page to list sources related to issues of trademark infringement online, particularly cybersquatting, the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, and gripe sites. Online trademark issues related to Pop-up and Keyword Advertising including Google AdWords cases have their own page.

News / Editorial

Legal Briefs / Opinions / Statutes

  • DSPT International v. Nahum, No. 08-5506 (9th Cir.; Oct. 27, 2010) (Web consultant that holds on to a domain name due to business dispute can be cybersquatting).
  • Career Agents Network Inc. v., No. 09-12269 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 26, 2010) (Defendant's registration and use of a domain name incorporating Plaintiff's mark to provide critical commentary were non-commercial, First amendment-protected uses of Plaintiff's mark).
  • Levinson Axelrod, PA v. Heyburn, No. 09-5627 (D. N.J. Jan. 13, 2010) (presuming irreparable harm in a case alleging trademark infringement and granting a preliminary injunction where former Levinson Axelrod attorney registered and used to air grievances).
  • Cintas Corp. v. Unite Here, No. 09-1287 (2d Cir. Dec. 8, 2009) (summary affirmance of district court order dismissing complaint regarding use of by unions).
  • Monex Deposit Co. v. Gilliam, No. 09-287, 2009 WL 4456564 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2009) (ACPA defendant that registered denied summary judgment even where Monex, registrant of, has no registered trademark but submitted a declaration indicating that no other entity is using the "Monex" mark to designate services related to trading in precious metals or lending funds for the purchase of precious metals and where defendant submitted no evidence of lack of confusion between the two domains).
  • Lahoti v. Vericheck, Inc., No. 08-35001 (9th Cir. Nov. 16, 2009) (district court's finding 'VeriCheck' mark suggestive vacated and remanded for court to consider whether it is merely descriptive, but cybersquatter's use of mark exhibited bad faith intent to profit under ACPA and thus he is not entitled to ACPA's safe harbor).
  • Mercury Radio Arts, Inc. and Glenn Beck v. Isaac Eiland-Hall, WIPO Administrative Panel Decision (Oct. 29, 2009) ('' is not confusingly similar to the trademark 'Glenn Beck' and is a noncommercial fair use; Glenn Beck is denied the rights to the domain).
  • Verizon California Inc. v. OnlineNIC, Inc., No. 08-02832 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2009) ($33.15 million ACPA default judgment, comprised of $50,000 in statutory damages per domain, was justified, did not violate substantive due process rights, and Defendant was not entitled to jury trial on damages).
  • Southern Grouts & Mortars, Inc. v. 3M Co., No. 08-15850, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 16600, 2009 WL 2182605 (11th Cir. Jul. 23, 2009) (renewal of unused domain name is not proof of bad faith intent to profit under ACPA).
  • Solid Host, NL v. NameCheap, Inc., No. 08-05414 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2009) (domain registrar is denied safe harbor by offering 'WhoIsGuard' privacy service, owning and leasing domain name).
  • Texas Int'l Property Assoc. v. Hoerbiger Holding AG, No. 07-2099, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40409 (N.D. Tex. May 12, 2009) (surname used as domain name is still trademark, no offer to sell domain still can be bad faith if used commercially).
  • Miranda v. Guerrero, No. 08-22326, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40898, 2009 WL 1381250 (S.D. Fla. May 5, 2009).
  • The Southern Co. v. Dauben Inc. No. 08-10248, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 7993, 2009 WL 1011183 (5th Cir. Apr. 15, 2009) (typosquatting, 5th circuit remanded based on 'fair use' consideration and finding of 'irreperable harm').
  • Kiva Kitchen & Bath Inc. v. Capital Distrib. Inc., 2009 WL 890591 (5th Cir. Apr. 2, 2009).
  • Cintas Corp. v. Unite Here, 2009 WL 604099 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2009).
  • Philbrick v. eNom, Inc., 2009 WL 152127 (D.N.H. Jan. 22, 2009).