Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. '1125(d)(1), prohibits registration of a domain name protected as a mark under the Lanham Act if the person: 1) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark; and 2) registers a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name (emphasis added). However, the ACPA does not define the term “registration.” The Ninth Circuit has now concluded that the ACPA does not apply to a domain name that is first registered prior to the time the trademark at issue becomes distinctive, even if the domain name is later re-registered by a new owner. However, the Ninth Circuit also held that the ACPA can apply to new domain names registered by the new owner after the mark acquires distinctiveness. GoPets Ltd. v. Hise, No. 08-56110 (9th Cir. 2011).
Case Background
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.