Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act/ACPA Archives

It’s PRUdent to Refrain from Cybersquatting: ACPA Applies to Domain Name Re-Registration

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit joined the Third and Eleventh Circuits in ruling that the re-registration of an infringing domain name with a bad faith intent to profit violates the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Shenzhen Stone Network Info. Ltd., Case No. 21-1823 (4th Cir. Jan. 24, 2023) (Diaz, Thacker, Floyd, JJ.)

The ACPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), protects trademark owners from cybersquatters that register, traffic in, or use a domain name “identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of” a distinctive or famous mark with the “bad faith intent to profit.” The ACPA jurisdictional requirement states that a trademark owner may either establish that a court has in personam jurisdiction over the defendant or, if personal jurisdiction cannot be established, bring an in rem action against the domain name.

Prudential Insurance Company of America’s trademark portfolio includes the term PRU and other PRU-formative marks. Shenzhen Stone Network Information (SSN) acquired the domain name PRU.COM from an online domain name marketplace, which leads to a parked page containing advertisements displaying Prudential’s trademarks and the marks of Prudential’s competitors. Prudential attempted to acquire the PRU.COM domain name twice—once through a domain name brokerage service and once after filing a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) administrative action with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). SSN rejected both offers. SSN claimed that it planned to develop the website into a foreign exchange and economic news platform, but it never substantively altered the parked page. Prudential subsequently dismissed the UDRP action and filed suit in the Eastern District of Virginia alleging cybersquatting and infringement against the CEO of SSN, Zhang (in personam), and PRU.COM (in rem). Zhang moved to dismiss the action or transfer it to the District of Arizona for lack of personal jurisdiction and in rem jurisdiction. The district court held that although it lacked personal jurisdiction over Zhang, in rem jurisdiction was appropriate at the time the complaint was filed. The district court then dismissed Prudential’s trademark infringement claim as moot, granted summary judgment to Prudential on its cybersquatting claim and ordered SSN to transfer the PRU.COM domain name. SSN timely appealed to the Fourth Circuit.

The Fourth Circuit, reviewing the district court ruling de novo, affirmed. As an initial matter, the Court held that the district court had proper in rem jurisdiction over the PRU.COM domain name because Zhang, as a corporate officer of SSN, lacked standing to defend SSN’s property interests and the domain name registry was located in Virginia. Moreover, in rem jurisdiction is assessed at the time the complaint is filed and cannot be destroyed during the pendency of the case if a proper defendant is later revealed.

Regarding the ACPA claim, SSN argued that since the initial domain name registrant registered PRU.COM in good faith, SSN, as a re-registrant, is not subject to the ACPA. The Fourth Circuit joined the Third and Eleventh Circuits in holding that the term “registration” in the ACPA is [...]

Continue Reading

Greek God or Continent? Defining “Confusing Similarity” under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act

Examining whether a registered mark and a domain name were confusingly similar under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the trademark owner because the mark and domains are nearly identical in sight, sound and meaning. Boigris v. EWC P&T, LLC, Case No. 20-11929 (11th Cir. Aug. 6, 2021) (Marcus, J.) (Newsom, J. dissenting). The registered trademark is “European Wax Center” and the domain names in issue are “europawaxcenter.com” and “euwaxcenter.com.”

EWC runs a nationwide beauty brand titled European Wax Center that offers hair removal services and beauty products and also holds a trademark under the same name. Since 2015, EWC sold cosmetics under the marks “reveal me,” “renew me” and “smooth me.” Bryan Boigris has no direct background related to the production of beauty products, but in April 2016, he claimed an intent to begin selling such products and attempted to register trademarks at the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) for “reveal me,” “renew me” and “smooth me,” none of which had been used in commerce before by Boigris. Boigris also registered 11 domain names including, “euwaxcenter.com” and “europawaxcenter.com.” Upon discovery of Boigris’s pending applications, EWC filed for its own trademark applications for “reveal me,” “renew me” and “smooth me” and filed an opposition to Boigris’s pending applications at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). The TTAB sustained the oppositions.

Boigris elected to contest the TTAB’s decision in district court. Specifically, Boigris sought reversal of the TTAB’s decision and an affirmative declaration that he was entitled to register the disputed marks. EWC counterclaimed for an affirmation of the TTAB’s decision as well as declaratory judgment that it had priority rights in the disputed marks, that Boigris’s use constituted infringement under the Lanham Act, damages and an injunction under the ACPA against Boigris’s use of the two domains, “europawaxcenter.com” and “euwaxcenter.com.” EWC moved for summary judgment on all of its claims, which the district court granted. Boigris appealed the ACPA decision only.

Under the ACPA, a trademark holder must prove that: (1) its trademark was distinctive when the defendant registered the challenged domain name; (2) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s trademark and (3) the defendant registered the domain name with a bad faith intent to profit. Boigris challenged the second element only and did not contest that EWC’s trademarks were distinctive or that he registered the domains in bad faith. Specifically, Boigris argued that the issue of whether or not the “European Wax Center” mark and the “europawaxcenter.com” and “euwaxcenter.com” domains are confusingly similar should have been a question for the jury.

The 11th Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling, determining that no reasonable jury could conclude that Boigris’s domain names are not confusingly similar to EWC’s mark. The Court acknowledged the difference between the Lanham Act’s traditional multi-factor likelihood of confusion test for trademark infringement and the test for confusing similarity, noting [...]

Continue Reading