domain name – Attorney Evan Brown

April 15, 2024 Cybersquatting

Does renewing a domain name count as “registering” a domain name under the ACPA?

ACPA

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”) is a federal law – part of the Lanham Act that deals with trademarks and unfair competition. It says that a person can be liable if he or she registers a domain name that contains another’s distinctive trademark with a bad faith intent to profit from that mark.

One issue that has arisen over the years is whether registration that can give rise to liability means only the first time the domain name is registered, or whether it applies to the re-registration, e.g., each year when the registration is up for renewal with the registrar. See this case from earlier this year where the court held that renewal was not registration.

The various federal circuits are split over the issue. At least the the Third, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits have all concluded that the ordinary meaning of the word “registers” necessarily includes both the first registration and any subsequent re-registrations. The Ninth Circuit has held that Congress meant “registration” to refer only to the initial registration.

The Second Circuit does not appear to have weighed in on the question. But a recent district court sitting in the Second Circuit sided with the “re-registration is registration” take from the Third, Fourth and Eleventh Circuits.

In the case of We the Protesters, Inc. v. Sinyangwe, 2024 WL 1195417 (S.D.N.Y., March 20, 2024), counter-defendant registered the disputed domain name in 2015. The issue was whether the re-registration of the disputed domain name in 2023 was a registration of a distinctive mark done in bad faith. This passage of time was important because it gave the arguably descriptive mark MAPPING POLICE VIOLENCE enough time to become distinctive.

Concerning the word “registers” in the ACPA, the court applied its ordinary meaning, noting that it was not the province of the court to add words to statutes that Congress enacts. “Had Congress wished to restrict the word ‘registration’ as used in the ACPA to initial registrations, it surely knew how to do so.”

We the Protesters, Inc. v. Sinyangwe, 2024 WL 1195417 (S.D.N.Y., March 20, 2024)

See also:

April 25, 2022 Contracts, Cybersquatting

Restraining order issued against domain name seller who refused to transfer

restraining order domain name

Defendant listed a domain name for sale using DomainAgents. After a couple rounds of negotiation, plaintiff accepted defendant’s counteroffer to sell the domain name. But when the time came to put the domain name in escrow to enable transfer, defendant backed out of the deal, saying he had changed his mind. Plaintiff sued for breach of contract and sought a temporary restraining order that would prohibit defendant from transferring the domain name.

The court granted the motion. It agreed with plaintiff that it was appropriate to determine the motion ex parte (that is, without giving notice to the defendant) because the defendant could transfer the domain name in the meantime, thereby depriving plaintiff of the ability to procure an irreplaceable asset.

It found plaintiff would likely succeed on the merits of the breach of contract claim, because plaintiff had shown that a valid contract likely existed, that plaintiff was willing to perform its end of the bargain, that defendant had breached by refusing to go through with the transaction, and that plaintiff had been damaged due to the loss of the ability to procure the domain name from defendant.

The court further found a likelihood of irreparable harm to plaintiff, in that defendant’s communicated belief that he was not bound by the purchase agreement indicated he would sell the domain name to another interested party. If that were to happen, plaintiff would have no recourse against that purchaser, who was not in privity of contract with plaintiff.

Moreover, the court found the balance of equities favored plaintiff. The temporary restraining order would only be in place until a further hearing on injunctive relief could be had, and defendant would not otherwise be restricted from using the domain name in the meantime.

Finally, the court held that the public interest favored granting injunctive relief. The public interest strongly favors enforcing contracts.

Jump Operations, LLC v. Merryman, 2022 WL 1082641 (D. Nev., April 8, 2022)

ACPA claim survives because mark was distinctive when domain name was re-registered

ACPA distinctive re-regiistered

Federal law has a statute that prohibits abusive domain name registration. The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(d) (ACPA) provides, among other things, that one is prohibited from registering, trafficking in or using, with a bad faith intent to profit, a domain name that is confusingly similar to another’s trademark that was distinctive when the domain name was registered.

In the recent case of Instructure, Inc. v. Canvas Technologies, the court considered whether the ACPA requires the mark to have been distinctive when the domain name was first registered, or whether it can still be protected by being distinctive when the domain name was re-registered. It held that the statute applies to distinctiveness at re-registration.

In this case, the disputed domain name was first registered in 1997, several years before plaintiff obtained trademark rights in its CANVAS mark. Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff’s cybersquatting claim, arguing that the plaintiff did not have rights to a distinctive mark when the domain name was first registered, and that therefore the statute’s requirement was not met. Plaintiff showed, however, that the ownership of the domain name changed sometime in 2021 (i.e., it was re-registered).

Looking to the statute’s plain language, Congressional intent, public policy, and the trending weight of authority in other federal circuits, the court held that re-registration, or “registration again” is contemplated under the ACPA’s language. It denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the ACPA claim.

Instructure, Inc. v. Canvas Technologies, Inc., 2022 WL 43829 (D.Utah, January 5, 2022)

November 10, 2017 Cybersquatting

UDRP Panel finds three letter domain name was not registered and used in bad faith

(This is a cross post from UDRP Tracker.)

UDRP complainant manufactures cameras used in science and industry, and claimed to be the sole user of the letters “PCO” in commerce. The respondent acquired the disputed domain name in 2008 and never established an active website there. The UDRP Panel refused to transfer the disputed domain name to the complainant, finding that the respondent did not regsiter and use the disputed domain name in bad faith.

In making this finding, the Panel observed:

Contrary to the complainant’s assertions that it was the exclusive user of the letters PCO, it is in fact common three-letter combination.
A number of UDRP cases about three-letter domain names show that such terms are generally in widespread use as acronyms and it is conceivable that they are registered for bona fide purposes.
The complainant claimed to have a stong worldwide reputation but actually operated only in a niche, so there was nothing to support the complainant’s claim that the respondent was “obviously” aware of the complainant when it acquired the disputed domain name.
The complainant overstated its case when it claimed that there was no conceivable good faith use to which the disputed domain name could be put.

For these reasons, despite the fact that the respondent did not reply in the action, the Panel denied the complaint.

PCO AG v. Register4Less Privacy Advocate, 3501256 Canada, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2017-1778 (October 30, 2017)

About the Author: Evan Brown is a Chicago technology and intellectual property attorney. Call Evan at (630) 362-7237, send email to ebrown [at] internetcases.com, or follow him on Twitter @internetcases. Read Evan’s other blog, UDRP Tracker, for information about domain name disputes.

January 5, 2015 Cybersquatting, Trademarks

Domain name case under ACPA failed because trademark was not distinctive

Federal appeals court holds that plaintiff failed to satisfy all elements of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in action against competing airline

The federal Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) [15 U.S.C. 1125(d)] is a provision in U.S. law that gives trademark owners a cause of action against one who has wrongfully registered a domain name. In general, the ACPA gives rights to owners of trademarks that are either distinctive or famous at the time the defendant registered the offending domain name.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the decision of a lower court that dismissed an ACPA claim, holding that the plaintiff failed to plead that its mark was distinctive at the time of the domain name registration.

Plaintiff sued its competitor, who registered the domain name tropicoceanairways.com. Defendant moved to dismiss, and the lower court granted the motion, finding that plaintiff failed to plead that its mark TROPIC OCEAN AIRWAYS was distinctive and thus protected under the ACPA. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that plaintiff’s complaint failed to allege that the mark was either suggestive or had acquired secondary meaning as an indicator of source for plaintiff’s services.

Suggestive marks are considered distinctive because they require “a leap of the imagination to get from the mark to the product.” (The court provided the example of a penguin used as a mark for refrigerators.) In this case, the court found the term “tropic ocean airways” was not suggestive, as it merely “inform[ed] consumers about the service [plaintiff provided]: flying planes across the ocean to tropical locations.”

The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that a pending application at the United States Patent and Trademark Office to register the mark proved that it was suggestive. While a certificate of registration may establish a rebuttable presumption that a mark is distinctive, the court held plaintiff was not entitled to such a presumption here, where the application remained pending. Moreover, the court observed in a footnote that the presumption of distinctiveness will generally only go back to the date the application was filed. In this case, the trademark application was not filed until about a year after the domain name was registered.

As for the argument the mark had acquired secondary meaning, the court found plaintiff’s allegations to be insufficient. The complaint instead made conclusory allegations about secondary meaning that were insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. The court held that plaintiff failed to allege the nature and extent of its advertising and promotion, and, more importantly, did not allege any facts about the extent to which the public identified the mark with plaintiff’s services.

Tropic Ocean Airways, Inc. v. Floyd, — Fed.Appx. —, 2014 WL 7373625 (11th Cir., Dec. 30, 2014)

Evan Brown is an attorney in Chicago helping clients with domain name, trademark, and other matters involving technology and intellectual property.

September 21, 2010 Cybersquatting, Litigation

Domain name owner gets swift relief against impostor website

Starcom Mediavest Group v. Mediavestw.com, No. 10-4025, 2010 WL 3564845 (September 13, 2010)

In rem actions over domain names are powerful tools. A trademark owner can undertake these actions when it identifies an infringing domain name but cannot locate the owner of that domain name. In a sense, the domain name itself is the defendant.

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (which is a part of the federal trademark statute dealing with the unauthorized registration of domain names) says that a court can enter ex parte orders requiring a domain name to be turned over when: (1) the plaintiff owns a registered trademark, (2) the domain name registry is located in the judicial district in which the action is being brought, (3) the domain name violates the plaintiff’s trademark rights, and (4) the plaintiff cannot locate the owner of the domain name even though it has diligently tried.

An “impostor” registered mediavestw.com, and “tricked” at least one of plaintiff’s business partners into signing up for advertising services. Plaintiff owns a trademark for MEDIAVEST and operates a website at mediavestww.com. Plaintiff filed an in rem action and sought a temporary restraining order (TRO).

The court granted the motion for TRO. It found that plaintiff had met its burden for a temporary restraining order in that it had shown that it was likely to succeed on the merits and that it would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. As for the showing of harm to its trademark rights, the court noted the efforts on the part of the domain name registrant to fraudulently enter into business arrangements with plaintiffs’ business partners.

The court found that the TRO would serve the public interest because such interest favors elimination of consumer confusion. (Consider whether there really was any consumer harm that took place here if the alleged fraud was on a business-to-business level. Compare the findings in this case with the finding of no consumer nexus in the recent Reit v. Yelp case.)

The court found that plaintiff had made such a strong showing of the likelihood of success that it did not require plaintiff to post a bond. It ordered the domain name transferred into the court’s control immediately. Behold the power of in rem actions.

June 2, 2010 Anonymity

Court scales back Zynga’s attempts to learn about anonymous Mafia Wars infringers

Zynga Game Network Inc. v. Williams, 2010 WL 2077191 (N.D.Cal. May 20, 2010)

Zynga (you know, the creator of Farmville and Mafia Wars) has filed a federal lawsuit against the operators of websites that sell virtual currency and goods for use in Mafia Wars. These websites allegedly give rise to infringement of the Mafia Wars trademark and the sale of these virtual things is in violation of the game’s terms of service.

In federal court, you can’t start the discovery process until the parties have met to discuss certain issues (this is called a Rule 26(f) conference). But there’s an obvious chicken and egg problem in cases like this that have anonymous defendants — how do you confer with a defendant you don’t know? You’re kind of stuck if you can’t take discovery to learn who he is.

Fortunately the court can allow discovery to happen before the Rule 26(f) conference when there is good cause.

So Zynga has argued that there is good cause to allow it to serve subpoenas on Godaddy (the registrant for the MAFIAWARSDIRECT.COM, MWBLACKMARKET.COM, and MWFEXPRESS.COM domain names) and PayPal, who apparently facilitated the purchase of virtual goods.

The court agreed that Zynga should get to serve the subpoenas. But it found that the subpoenas as proposed were too broad. For example, Zynga sought all billing and account records, server logs, website content, contact information, transaction histories and correspondence for the persons or entities that purchased services from the offending sites. The court held that the limited discovery appropriate for Zynga at the early stage would only allow it to get identifying information for the site owners.

June 16, 2009 Litigation, Miscellaneous

Domain name not tangible property that could satisfy judgment

Palacio del Mar Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. McMahon, — Cal.Rptr.3d —, 2009 WL 1668294 (Cal. App. 4 Dist. June 16, 2009)

A California state court entered a $40,000 judgment against defendant McMahon in favor of plaintiff homeowners association. The homeowners association tried to collect the money from McMahon, seeking a “turnover” of property McMahon owned. Among the items the homeowners association sought was the domain name ahrc.com, registered in the name of McMahon’s wife.

The trial court permitted the domain name to be turned over to the homeowners association to satisfy the judgment. McMahon sought review with the California Court of Appeal. That court reversed and vacated the turnover order.

The court gave several reasons for reversing the lower court. The most interesting reason, however, dealt with the very nature of domain names. The provision in California law allowing turnover of property limits itself to tangible property that can be “levied upon by taking it into custody.” Looking to the case of Network Solutions, Inc. v. Umbro International, Inc., 529 S.E.2d 80 (Va. 2000), the court held that a domain name registration is not property, but merely supplies the intangible contractual right to use a unique domain name for a specified period of time. Even if the registration were property, it was not something that could be taken into custody.