Do You Know Where Your Trademark Is? How the Fourth Circuit’s Interpretation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act Correctly Protects Trademark Owners Online

Authors

Alexa Blandeburgo

Document Type

Note

Abstract

(Excerpt)

This Note argues that the Fourth Circuit correctly held that “registration” encompasses both the initial and subsequent registration of a domain name under the ACPA. The Ninth Circuit’s narrow interpretation oversimplified the complexity of domain name ownership and thereby created a narrow loophole for cybersquatters to evade liability. Part I of this Note provides an overview of cybersquatting and the statutory framework that practitioners used prior to the enactment of the ACPA. Part II of this Note compares the ACPA and the UDRP and why a trademark owner would choose one avenue for relief as opposed to the other. Part III of this Note explains the circuit split, including the facts, holding, and rationale of each case. Part IV of this Note argues that the Fourth Circuit correctly held that subsequent registrations are within the purview of the ACPA from multiple perspectives of statutory interpretation: (1) textual analysis, (2) legislative history, and (3) public policy justifications. Lastly, Part V of this Note provides a solution to enforce stronger protections for trademark owners on the Internet.