ACPA Restrictions On Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act does not expressly recognize reverse domain name hijacking and often only limits defendants’ recovery to retention or transference of the domain name. It also fails to provide any remedies for victims of attempted reverse cybersquatting. However, the statute permits some monetary relief where bad faith, reckless disregard or the willful violation of a court order are involved.
Similarly, a 1975 amendment to the Lanham Act gives courts discretion in awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party in “exceptional” circumstances. In attempting to define “exceptional,” Circuit courts are split as to what objectively constitutes malicious, fraudulent, or deliberate misconduct. Some courts award such fees where bad faith or baseless litigation is involved while other courts look for economic coercion or failure to reference controlling law. Nevertheless, due to the inherent animosity arising from being sued, courts generally hold prevailing defendants to a higher level of scrutiny, requiring vexatious or harassing conduct to shift attorney’s fees in their favor.
Read more about this topic: Reverse Domain Hijacking
Famous quotes containing the words reverse and/or domain:
“We came home from the ridotto so late, or rather so early, that it was not possible for me to write. Indeed we did not go ... till past eleven o’clock: but nobody does. A terrible reverse of the order of nature! We sleep with the sun, and wake with the moon.”
—Frances Burney (1752–1840)
“Without metaphor the handling of general concepts such as culture and civilization becomes impossible, and that of disease and disorder is the obvious one for the case in point. Is not crisis itself a concept we owe to Hippocrates? In the social and cultural domain no metaphor is more apt than the pathological one.”
—Johan Huizinga (1872–1945)