all:
This realy isn't the list to discuss policy, and especially US TradeMark law. please take this thread to a more appropiate forum. thanks, -rick On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, tedd wrote: > Professor Froomkin: > > > > > In the US, we have an anti-cybersquatting law where I can't register > > > > EXXON.com because of the Trademark owned by EXXON. > > > >This is a slight over-simplification of US law. You may be able to > >register exxon.com quite legally for certain purposes, including parody, > >and especially non-commercial purposes (e.g. an environmental group that > >wished to complain about something Exxon was doing). > > Now, I am not questioning a law professor about a question of law, > but what I said, while being simplistic, was nonetheless true. The > following is my understanding and why I used EXXON, a "famous > trademark" (see ACPA below), as an example. Perhaps others may > benefit from the point clarification. > > Also, as per my understanding, one cannot register the domain name of > "exxon.com" for it is already registered. -- even for other purposes > (i.e., non-commercial purposes, environmental, or whatever) because > ta specific domain name can not be registered twice. Certainly, other > domain names containing "exxon" have been registered, such as > "exxonsucks.com" and it has even been made into a "critical of Exxon" > web site. However, this was done before the ACPA was signed. I do not > know how this type of "infringement" registration would shake out now. > > However, I do strongly believe that if someone registered > "exxon*.com" (where the * was the registered trademark symbol -- code > point 00A3), they could be in trouble under the ACPA trying to sell > it to Exxon or use it for their own purposes. Do you agree? > > --- ACPA > > On November 29, 1999, President Clinton signed into law the > "Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act" (ACPA). This law adds > section 43(d) to the U.S. Trademark Act of 1946 and creates a cause > of action for "cybersquatting" on famous trademarks. The ACPA also > creates a federal cause of action for cybersquatting on a person's > name without his or her permission. > > Under the ACPA, a person may face civil liability to the owner of a > trademark (or a personal name) if such person: > (i) has a bad faith intent to profit from a mark; and > (ii) registers, trafficks in, or uses a domain name that: > (a) is identical or confusingly similar to a distinctive trademark; > (b) is identical, confusingly similar to or dilutive of a famous trademark; or > (c) infringes a specially-granted trademark such as "U.S. OLYMPICS" > or "AMERICAN RED CROSS." > > A "distinctive trademark" is any trademark that has been registered > with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office or which has been used with > goods and/or services for sufficient time that it has acquired > "secondary meaning" among consumers. > > A "famous trademark" is one that a court says is famous. There are > numerous factors that are considered, including the duration and > extent of use, extent of advertising, degree of public recognition, > and whether the mark was registered with the U.S. Patent and > Trademark Office. In practice, a "famous trademark" is one that most > people have heard of, on a regular basis, for many years (i.e. Kodak, > Microsoft, Exxon). > > Now, I'm back to lurking as well. > > tedd > > -- > http://sperling.com >
