FINAL EXAM STUDY GUIDE:

Cybersquatting

• So what is cybersquatting? How is it defined by the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act?
   
  
• What are the two remedies to cybersquatting? Why is the ICANN arbitration system considered better?
   
  
• What is a third choice when faced with a cybersquatter?
   
  
• What steps are recommended for discovering if a domain name is being used by a cybersquatter? Where do you look up the name and address of a domain name owner? What actions are recommended?
   
  
• What does the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) authorize a trademark owner to do?
   
  
• Under the ACPA, what must the trademark owner prove to stop a cybersquatter?
   
  
• When is the domain name holder likely to be allowed to keep it under the ACPA?
   
  
• What is the name of ICANN's policy for resolving domain name disputes?
   
  
• What must the complainant prove under the ICANN arbitration procedure?
   
  
• What are the possible results under the ICANN procedure? Are financial remedies available?
   
  
• How is the ICANN arbitration ruling enforceable?

• What are the facts of the case? In other words, what did Doughney do to get into trouble?
   
  
• Explain whether Doughney was a cybersquatter.
   
  
• Be able to explain the DISTRICT court's reasoning in rejecting Doughney's parody defense.
   
  
• Explain whether, according to the Fourth Circuit, Doughney had to actually sell or advertise goods or services on the www.peta.org Web site to be considered to have used PETA's mark "in connection with" goods or services.
   
  
• Explain the Fourth Circuit's reasoning in rejecting Doughney's parody defense.
   
  
• What was the conclusion of the Fourth Circuit? With which party did the court agree on the use of the peta.org domain name?

• (Answers can be found in the Discussion and Findings section.)
   
  
• Was either "Walsucks" or "Walmarket Puerto Rico" an established legal entity?
   
  
• What three elements must be established by the complainant to merit a finding that a Respondent has engaged in abusive domain name registration and to obtain relief?
   
  
• What was the Respondent's intent in using the various domain names?
   
  
• Does the addition of a common or generic term (e.g., -sucks) following a trademark create a new or different mark in which Respondent has rights?
   
  
• Did the panel think Internet users would think Wal-Mart was sponsoring the "walmartcanadasucks.com," "wal-martcanadasucks.com", "walmartuksucks.com" and "walmartpuertoricosucks.com" sites? What did the panel say about the use of these domain names?
   
  
• Explain whether the respondent was a cybersquatter.
   
  
• How did the Respondent's use of the work -sucks differ from the usage in the Ballysucks case?
   
  
• In the Lucentsucks case, had the court indicated that the Respondent's intent would still be an important element? Had the court declared -sucks formative domain names to be immune as a matter of law from scrutiny as being confusingly similar to trademarks to which they are appended?
   
  
• Did the panel in the Walsucks case intend for its ruling to be precedent for other similar cases? In other words, was it attempting to say that in all situations the use of -sucks in a domain name would not be protected as free expression?
   
  
• What was the key to the panel's reasoning that in this situation the -sucks domain names were not protected?
   
  
• Did the panel's decision rest on when the Respondent posted content to the -sucks Web sites or what the content was?
   
  
• How had the Respondent contradicted his own claim to a freedom of expression interest in establishing the Web sites?
   
  
• What was the conclusion of the panel?
   
  

Return to Law/Ethics Adv./PR Home Page