 Article
Feeds
|
Revealing the Hidden Menace |
April 2, 2008
Previously published by Trademark World on February 2008
The court's decision in In re Wright is significant. The ACPA was enacted to deter cybersquatters from unfairly capitalising on the goodwill created by trademark owners and on the confusion of Internet users. One of the ACPA's primary deterrents is the threat of large statutory damage awards. If potential cybersquatters know that they can discharge those awards in bankruptcy court, or use the threat of bankruptcy to discourage trademark owners from pursuing litigation to obtain and collect statutory damages, they will be less deterred from continuing their cybersquatting activities. Without In re Wright, trademark owners would have to litigate two cases: the ACPA case to obtain the statutory damages award and a bankruptcy proceeding to prove that the cybersquatter intentionally and maliciously harmed their intellectual property to except that debt from discharge.
Thanks to In re Wright, however, trademark owners need only litigate the ACPA case. This new weapon in the arsenal of trademark owners will hopefully deter cybersquatting while at the same time making it easier for trademark owners to collect on statutory damage awards under the ACPA.
|
The views expressed in this article are solely the views of the author and not Martindale-Hubbell. This article is intended for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. |
|
|
RSS | Blogs | Site Map | Contact Us