Cybersquatting Domain Names

ACPA Cases 2019

A domain name owner can file a lawsuit under the ACPA to stop the effect of a UDRP order that transfer domain names to the person that filed a UDRP complaint.

The ACPA complaint often leads to the settlements that cover your attorneys fees some statutory damages of up to $100,000 per domain name.

ACPA cases are really expensive if litigated to trial. Even a motion to dismiss can cost $30,000 to $70,000. There’s usually a mediation before any motions and sometimes the defendant pays the domain owner $40,000 and agrees that they shouldn’t get the domain.

However, the domain hijackers are usually aggressive, so don’t expect them to roll over. You need to build a solid case for your mediation.

Domain hijackers usually want the domain included in a confidential settlement. That’s next level domain name hijacking. Don’t agree to giving your domain away if you have a solid case. Hire the best domain name litigation attorney that you can find.

ACPA Was Meant to Stop Consumer Confusion

It’s rare that the defendant can prove that they were harmed by consumer confusion in the year that you registered your domain.

Many of these cases involve valuable domains that were registered 10 to 25 years ago. UDRP complainants aim to take your property through a legal process in order to use it in their business to make sure their brand is consistent.

The defendant usually pays the domain owner’s legal fees and walks away, if the case settles, or the court decides the matter and makes decision on the merits.

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), is a U.S. law enacted in 1999 that established a cause of action for registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name confusingly similar to, or dilutive of, a trademark or personal name.

Cybertelecom :: Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act Providing Legislative History, Caselaw, and References

(d)Cyberpiracy prevention


(A)person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section, if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person


has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section; and

(ii)registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that—


in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark;


in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark; or


is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section 706 of title 18 or section 220506 of title 36.


(i)In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A), a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to—


the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name;


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;


the person’s prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services;


the person’s bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name;


the person’s intent to divert consumers from the mark owner’s online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site;


the person’s offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person’s prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;


the person’s provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name, the person’s intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the person’s prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;


the person’s registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or dilutive of famous marks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services of the parties; and


the extent to which the mark incorporated in the person’s domain name registration is or is not distinctive and famous within the meaning of subsection (c).


Bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A) shall not be found in any case in which the court determines that the person believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that the use of the domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful.


In any civil action involving the registration, trafficking, or use of a domain name under this paragraph, a court may order the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark.


person shall be liable for using a domain name under subparagraph (A) only if that person is the domain nameregistrant or that registrant’s authorized licensee.


As used in this paragraph, the term “traffics in” refers to transactions that include, but are not limited to, sales, purchases, loans, pledges, licenses, exchanges of currency, and any other transfer for consideration or receipt in exchange for consideration.

WIPO’s List of UDRP-related Court Cases

This list of select court cases known to have been issued following a UDRP decision, as of August 10, 2018.

Court reference Domain Name(s) UDRP Case Number
Marchex Sales Inc. v. Tecnologia Barcaria S.A., Case 14-cv-01306, E.D. Va., June 15, 2015 (Court Order)
[United States]
WIPO Case No:
Jeffrey Walter v. Ville de Paris, Case No. 4:09-CV-3939, United States District Court for Southern District of Texas, September 14, 2012 (Default Judgement)
[United States of America] WIPO Case No:
GOPETS LTD., a limited liability Korean corporation v. EDWARD HISE, an individual, and JOSEPH HISE, an individual; DIGITAL OVERTURE, INC., a California corporation (Court Order)
[United States of America] WIPO Case No:
Tucows.Com Co. v. Lojas Renner S.A., 2011 ONCA 548 (Disposition)
[Canada] WIPO Case No:
Neon Network, LLC v. Aspis Liv Forsakrings, No. CV-08-1188-PHX-DGC, United States District Court, Arizona, June 22, 2009
[United States of America] WIPO Case No:
Pankajkumar Patel v Allos Theraputics Inc, High Court of Justice Chancery Division, Claim No: HC07C01730, June 13, 2008 (2008 WL 2442985)
[United Kingdom] WIPO Case No:
Patel v Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc & Others, High Court of Justice Chancery Division, 2006 EWHC 3461 (Ch), November 30, 2006 (Judgment)
[United Kingdom]] NAF FA642131, Inc. v. Lo Monaco Hogar, S.L., Case No. 08-11402-G U.S. U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
[United States of America] WIPO Case No:
Gioacchino Zerbo v. Microsoft Corporation, La Corte d’Appello di Milano, July 13, 2006
[Italy] WIPO Case No:
Junghu Kang v. Myspace, Inc., Seoul Central District Court, August 30, 2007
[Republic of Korea] NAF FA672160
Victoria’s Secret Stores, et al., v. Artco Equipment Company, Inc. Case No. C-2-01-198, United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division, March 27, 2002
[United States of America] NAF FA94342
Marqueze Producciones, S.L. v. Carlos Sanz Valbuena, Judgement: 00204-2003, September 26, 2003
[Spain] WIPO Case No:
Kim Hae Sook v. Crédit Commercial de France, Korean Supreme Court, February 1, 2008
[Republic of Korea]
WIPO Case No:
D2002-0094 v. Maruti Udyog Ltd., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61690 (D. Md. 2006)
[United States of America] WIPO Case No:
NBC Universal, Inc. v., 378 F. Supp. 2d 715 (D. Va. 2005)
[United States of America] WIPO Case No:
Kim Yong Hwan v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Korean Supreme Court, April 24, 2008
[Republic of Korea] NAF FA95358
Société des Produits Nestlé S.A v. Pro Fiducia Treuhand AG, Tribunal fédéral 4C.376/2004 (Court decision of January 21, 2005)
[Switzerland] WIPO Case No:
Moniseur Michel LE P et l’association Internationale des Concours de Beauté pour les Pays Francophones v. Société Miss France et Comité La Société Miss France et l’Association Comite Miss France, Miss Europe, Miss Univers, Cour D’Appel de Paris 1ère chambre, section C no.2002/20314
WIPO Case No:
Nike, Inc. v. Circle Group Internet, Inc., No. 02-C-7192 (N.D. Ill. May 21 2004)
[United States of America] WIPO Case No:
Haixin Jiang v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N. V., Second Shanghai Intermediate People’s Court, December 24, 2003
[China] WIPO Case No:
[Delikomat Betriebsverpflegung Gesellschaft m.b.H.] v. [Alexander Lehner], Austrian Supreme Court decision of March 16 2004, 4 Ob 42/04m
[Austria] WIPO Case No:
Miguel Garcia Quintas v. Eresmas Interactiva, SA / Alehop Internet, SL, (Ordinary Proceeding 179/2003) First Instance Court no.71 of Madrid
[Spain] WIPO Case No:
Storey v. Cello Holdings, L.L.C., 182 F. Supp. 2d 355 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2002) vacated, remanded, No. 02-7281, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 20611 (2nd Cir. October 9, 2003)
[United States of America] eRes AF-0506
Digital Marketing Support ApS v. Dagbladet Børsen A/S, Maritime and Commercial Court in Copenhagen, August 26, 2003
WIPO Case No:
ERESMAS INTERACTIVA, S.A v. Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento de Barcelona, 189 F. Supp. 2d 367, 63 U.S.P.Q.2d 1189 (E.D. Va. Feb. 22, 2002) rev’d, vacated, remanded, 330 F.3d 617, 67 U.S.P.Q.2d 1025 (4th Cir. Va. June 2, 2003)
[United States of America] WIPO Case No:
Int’l Bancorp, LLC v. Société des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Étrangers à Monaco, 192 F. Supp. 2d 467, 62 U.S.P.Q.2d 1621 (E.D. Va. Mar. 25, 2002) aff’d, 329 F.3d 359, 66 U.S.P.Q.2d 1705 (4th Cir. Va. May 19, 2003)
[United States of America]
WIPO Case Nos:
America Online Latino v. America Online, Inc., 250 F. Supp. 2d 351 (S.D.N.Y. March 13, 2003)
[United States of America] WIPO Case No:
Retail Services, Inc. v. Freebies Publishing, 247 F. Supp. 2d 822, (E.D. Va. Feb. 27, 2003)
[United States of America] NAF FA0204000112565
Dluhos v. Strasberg, 00-CV-3163 (D. N.J. Aug. 31, 2001) aff’d in part, rev’d and remanded in part, 321 F.3d 365, 5 U.S.P.Q.2d 1842, 65 U.S.P.Q.2d 1842 (3d Cir. N.J. Feb. 20, 2003)
[United States of America] NAF FA0094909
International Services Incorporated, Internet Billions Domains v. Venetian Casino Resort LLC, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11805, C.A. 01-5417 (E.D. Pa. May 31, 2002)
[United States of America] WIPO Case No:
Bord v. Banco de Chile, No. 02-1360-A (E.D.Va. May 15, 2002)
[United States of America] WIPO Case No:
Javier García Quintas v. Cortefiel, S.A., (Sentencia de la Audiencia Provincial de Las Palmas, de fecha de 3 de mayo de 2002)
[Spain] WIPO Case No:
Eurotech, Inc. v. Cosmos European Travels, No. 01-1689-A, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3984 (E.D. Va. Mar. 6, 2002)
[United States of America] WIPO Case No:
Sallen v. Corinthians Licenciamentos Ltda., No. 00-11555-WGY, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19976, (Mass. Dist. Ct. Dec. 19, 2000) rev’d, 273 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. Dec. 5, 2001)
[United States of America] WIPO Case No:
Victoria’s Cyber Secret Limited Partnership v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 161 F. Supp. 2d (S.D. Fla. Sept. 10, 2001)
[United States of America]
NAF FA0096536
Strick Corp. v. Strickland, 162 F. Supp. 2d 372 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 27, 2001)
[United States of America] NAF FA0094801
Easthaven, Ltd. v. Inc., 202 D.L.R.4th 560 (Ontario Super. Ct. J. Aug. 15, 2001);, Inc. v. Easthaven, Ltd., 58 U.S.P.Q.2d 1160 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 16, 2000)
[Canada] CPR CPR-012, LLC v. Fisher Controls International, Inc., No. H-01-1423, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10002 (S.D. Tex. June 28, 2001)
[United States of America] NAF FA0096749
Referee Enterprises, Inc. v. Planet Ref, Inc., No. 00-C-1391, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9303 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 24, 2001)
[United States of America]
NAF FA0094707, Inc. v. Perot Systems Corp., 158 F. Supp. 2d 589 (E.D. Pa. June 19, 2001)
[United States of America] NAF FA0094725
Virtual Countries, Inc. v. Republic of South Africa, 148 F. Supp. 2d 256 (S.D.N.Y. June 18, 2001)
[United States of America]
Parisi v. Netlearning, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 2d 745 (E.D. Va. May 10, 2001)
[United States of America] NAF FA0095471
Virtuality L.L.C. v. Bata Ltd., 138 F. Supp. 2d 677 (D. Md. Apr. 3, 2001)
[United States of America]
DeC AF-0289
Purple Interactive Ltd. v. Formula One Licensing, No. C 00-2222 MMC, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2968 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2001)
[United States of America] WIPO Case No:
Armitage Hardware & Building Supply, Inc. v. Weber-Stephen Products Co., 54 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1766 (N.D. Ill. May 3, 2000)
[United States of America]
WIPO Case No:

WIPO has even dared to delete some of the cases it previously listed, such as:

Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc. v. MICYS
Company S.p.A, Court File No. CV-12-454767, Ontario
Superior Court of Justice, March 11, 2013 (Court Order)
[Canada] WIPO Case No:
(Terminated by