Document Type
Note
Abstract
This paper will explain the arguments whether the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) prevents cybersquatting from re-registering a domain name, or if the ACPA only prevents cybersquatters from being the first to register a domain name, and concludes that due to the clear intent of the Act and the definition of register, the Act should be interpreted to cover all registrations. Part II provides relevant background including the pre-ACPA laws. Part III provides a detailed explanation of the ACPA, including Congress’s intent, the Court’s breakdown, and the existing law. Part IV provides the relevant case history prior to the circuit split. Part V provides an explanation and breakdown of the federal court circuit split over whether registration applies to initial registration and re-registration, or initial registration alone. Part VI covers the Ninth Circuit Court’s argument as to why the ACPA only covers the initial registration. Part VII covers the Third Circuit Court and Eleventh Circuit Court’s argument as to why the ACPA covers the initial registration as well as all subsequent registrations. Part VIII provides a summary of The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Shenzhen Stone Network Information LTD (“Prudential v. Shenzhen Stone.”) Part IX provides an explanation of the decision in Prudential v. Shenzhen Stone, as well as a look into how the decision may impact the act of cybersquatting, and how businesses will be affected as a result.
First Page
116
Last Page
146
Recommended Citation
Taylor Heath,
Cybersquatting: Does Re-Registering Trademarks Fall Under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act?,
18 J. Bus. Entrepreneurship & L.
116
(2025)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/jbel/vol18/iss1/4
