Business identity theft under the UDRP and the ACPA: is bad faith always bad for business advertising?
Websites have provided a very strong platform for businesses to reach their customers. They surpass the regular billboards by providing portals through which transactions are conducted without any physical contacts between a seller and a buyer. This usefulness underscores the importance of domain names through which websites are navigated. Cybersquatters have in bad faith targeted or hijacked domain names of famous and reputable businesses exploiting the goodwill of these names and misleading customers and other internet users. This paper explores the construction of bad faith under both the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy and the US Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. The paper argues that, despite some inconsistencies, 'bad faith' elements have been broadly interpreted to embrace various activities of cybersquatters. It cautions that an overzealous application of the instruments may stifle freedom of speech.
FATUROTI, B. 2015. Business identity theft under the UDRP and the ACPA: is bad faith always bad for business advertising? Journal of international commercial law and technology [online], 10(1), pages 1-12. Available from: https://www.neliti.com/publications/28852/business-identity-theft-under-the-udrp-and-the-acpa-is-bad-faith-always-bad-for
|Journal Article Type||Article|
|Acceptance Date||Sep 25, 2014|
|Online Publication Date||May 1, 2015|
|Publication Date||May 1, 2015|
|Deposit Date||Sep 13, 2016|
|Publicly Available Date||Sep 13, 2016|
|Journal||Journal of international commercial law and technology|
|Publisher||International Association of IT Lawyers (IAITL)|
|Peer Reviewed||Peer Reviewed|
|Keywords||Domain names; Cyber squatters; Freedom of speech; Business identities; Uniform dispute resolution policy (UDRP); Anti cybersquatting consumer protection act (ACPA)|
FATUROTI 2015 Business identity theft
Publisher Licence URL
You might also like
A tale of two rights: mediating between P2P owners and digital copyright holders.
Complementarity or disparity?