The AntiCybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
Domain names are simply the addresses of the Internet. E-mail is sent and web pages are found through the use of domain names.
When a company finds that the domain name corresponding to their corporate name or product trademark is owned by someone else, the company can either choose a different name or fight to get the domain name from its current owners. When a dispute over a domain name occurs, the parties can turn to the courts. While courts and judges have the authority to award control and ownership over domain names (just as they have authority to award control and ownership over any other property), the judicial process is notoriously slow. Many parties have avoided the courts and turned to the domain name dispute policies of the domain name registrars.
Companies that do bring a court action must present legal arguments on why a domain name registered to someone else should be cancelled or transferred to an organization who wasn’t fast enough to register the name first. Historically, these arguments were based on trademark law or dilution law. It was sometimes difficult to present a strong case under the traditional principals of trademark law, especially when the party seeking to obtain a domain name either could not prove a likelihood of confusion (which is required under trademark law) or was a famous individual who never technically established trademark rights in their name.
On November 1999 the Congress passed the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. The act made it easier for individuals and companies to take over domain names that are confusingly similar to their names or valid trademarks. They must establish that the domain name holder acted in bad faith.
The experience necessary to successfully challenge domain ownership and defend against domain claims in arbitration proceedings under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) established by ICANN in 1999.