Talk:Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act/Archive 1

Archive 1

January 2005

Howdy. I've had a go at expanding this out. I pretty just read the text at the link provided. I also got a bit of info from thomas.gov

I initially didn't realise it at first, but the ACPA is actually just a small part of a larger bill. I hope this came across clearly. I personally don't want to try and write an article about the whole thing, but it is something I think should be done, as there is a lot more to it than just trademark protection on domain names. EsonLinji 09:44, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I thought I read about this law (or parts of it) being struck down as unconstitutional? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.142.224 (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The cybertelecom website that a majority of the critiques are drawn from is incredibly biased, and worse, it is actually wrong on the points of law. The Federal Rules of Evidence (since this is a federal cause of action, it can be brought in federal court, but even if brought in state court, the various states' rules of evidence are fairly consistent on this point) provide that evidence taken from settlement talks is inadmissible. FRE 408. Obviously this is a final line between someone is making an offer for a settlement and when someone is trying to sell the domain name, but the impression given by this article and cybertelecom is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.118.18 (talk) 05:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Name

This article used to claim that this is also known as the Truth in Domain Names Act. That is wrong. The TIDNA was a 2003 Bill sponsored by Orin Hatch. This Act was a 1999 Bill, sponsored by Trent Lott. Uncle G (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Recovery of Damages

The article says "it does not permit the recovery of damages, costs, or attorneys' fees." However, a linked article in the Further Reading section called "The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act: Key Information" clearly states, with reference to the ACPA, that the mark owner can receive up to three times the actual damages incurred.... I would change this, but, i wanna wait to see if others agree that the wiki contents is obviously mistaken. Vylen (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha, whoops.. i'm such an idiot... i read the article carefully (this is what happens when you read _alot_ of articles).. it was really about the in rem part... article isn't wrong.. however, i still think its noteworthy in the article to say that it is indeed possible to get monetary compensation under the ACPA (the UDRP does not allow for something like this) Vylen (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

This page was revised on December 2 for an assignment for Prof. Eric Goldman's Cyberlaw class at Santa Clara University School of Law. Although the previous version was informative, I have greatly expanded upon the topic. Jel78 (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Over Emphasis on "Nine Points" for Bad Faith

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1125.html

15 U.S. Code § 1125 (d)(1)(B)(ii): "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."

I think this is arguably as and possibly more important than the laundry list of nine points in 1125(d)(1)(B)(i). "Had reasonable grounds to believe" is pretty strong in this context.Phaedral (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

extending an Act making it worse or better

In the article's Background section, one sentence confuses me: "Rulings like this extended the Federal Trademark Dilution Act substantially, making the law a less-than-ideal fit for protecting trademark owners against cybersquatters." In context, it would appear that rulings extending the Act would make the law more of an ideal, not less. But I assume there was a problem so that the law was less useful, so maybe something else about its implementation was problematic or perhaps the predicate explanation is erroneous. Could someone who knows the subject please clarify? 209.2.60.77 (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC) (This was posted by me on a day when Wikipedia was mysteriously logging me out about every 10 minutes or so and I just noticed that this post is thus erroneously not attributed to me: Nick Levinson (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC))

Archive 1