[1] In the absence of cyberspace-specific legislation like the United States' Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act domain name disputes in common law jurisdictions are subjected to "traditional' areas of trademark law and relvant trade practices legislation.
[2] Patrick Gunning, "Trade Marks and Domain Names" (2000) Cyber Law Res 1. Available on http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/CyberLRes/2000/1/
[3] http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/statistics/filings.html
[4] Above n 3.
[5] Cardservice Int'l v McGee 950 F Supp 737, 741 (E.D. Va. 1997).
[6] MTV Networks Inc v Curry 867 F Supp 202, 203-204 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
[7] Jonathan Eisenberg, "A Guide to the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act" (2000) www.gcwf.com/articles/journal/jil-march00-1.html
[8] John D. Mercer, "Cybersquatting: Blackmail on the Information Superhighway" (2000) 6 Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law, 11.
[9] Christopher R. Perry "Trademarks as Commodities: The 'Famous' Roadblock to Applying Trademark Dilution Law in Cyberspace" (2000) 32 Connecticut Law Review, 1127.
[10] Mercer, above n 8, 4.
[11] See Christopher P. Rains, "A Domain By Any Other Name: Forging International Solutions For the Governance of Internet Domain Names" 14 Emory International Law Review, 355, 365.
[12] Intermatic, Inc v Toeppen 947 F. Supp. 1227 (N.D. Ill. 1996).
[13] Panavision Intl v Toeppen 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998).
[14] Quoted in Jeremy D. Mishkin, "Master of Your Domain - An Overview Of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act" (2000) 18 Communications Lawyer, 3. (Available on Westlaw).
[15] Rains, n 11 above, 367.
[16] The ACPA was enacted in November 1999.
[17] Senate Report No. 106-140, at 4.
[18] 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (d) (1) (A)(i) and (ii).
[19] F. Gregory Lastowka explains that "[t]arnishment occurs when a defenandt uses a plaintiff's famous mark in an unwholesome context or in a context out of keeping with the plaintiff's image." F. Gregory Lastowka, "Search Engines, HTML, and Trademarks: What's the Meta For?" (2000) 86 Virginia Law Review 835, 843.
[20] For example, Morrison & Foerster LLP v Brian Wick, et al., No 00-B-465, 2000 U.S. Dist. (D. Colo. April 19, 2000). Here, the defendant registered a range of law firm names as sites (using either the name verbatim or some variation of it), claiming he wanted to use them for parody purposes. However, the court rejected this argument, saying that the defendant's action "is more analogous to source identification than to a communicative message." (1135).
[21] Toys "R" Us v Akkaoui No C 96-3381 CW, 1996 WL 772709 (N.D. Cal. Oct 29, 1996).
[22] Sporty's Farm L.L.C. v. Sportsman's Market, Inc., 202 F3d C.A. 2 (Conn Feb 2000).
[23] 15 U.SC. § 1125 (d) (1)(B)(IX) (ii).
[24] See for example, Evan Hansen, "House, Courts Make Decisions on Cybersquatting" Oct 26, 1999 http://news.cnet.com/category/0-1005-200-1402912.html.
[25] See "Legal Tips for Your 'Sucks' Site" Oscar Cisneros, Wired News, 14 August 2000 http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38056,00.html
[26] Brookfield Communications v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 1999).
[27] See David Streitfeld, "Making Bad Names for Themselves; Firms Preempt Critics With Nasty Domains" The Washington Post, Friday September 8, 2000, Westlaw 25414864.
[28] 15 U.SC. 1125 (d) (2)(A) states: "The owner of a mark may file an in rem civil action against a domain name in the judicial district in which the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority that registered or assigned the domain name is located".
[29] Lockheed Martin Corp v Network Solutions Inc, 985 F. Supp. 949 (C.D. Cal 1997), aff'd, 194 F 3d 980 (9th Cir. 1999).
[30] For example, in Nissan Motor Co., Ltd v Nissan Computer Corp, 89 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (C.D. Cal, March 2000) the defendant registered nissan.com in 1994. His named happens to be Uzi Nissan, and he had been using "Nissan" as a business name since 1985. This case concerned only the question of jurisdiction - the outcome of the court case to follow is foreshadowed by the District Court judge's opinion that the trademark has been infringed and that, moreover the defendant showed bad faith intent (after being approached by Nissan Motors, Mr Nissan apparently saw a commercial opportunity and refused to part with the name unless Nissan Motors agreed to pay him several million dollars).
[31] Tamara Loomis, "Disputes get swift resolution under UDRP" (2000) 224 New York Law Journal 18. Westlaw 7/27/2000 N.Y.L.J. 5, (col. 2).
[32] Jack Goldsmith, "Cybercrime and Jurisdictions" (2000) http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/cybercrime_and_jurisdiction.htm
[33] Rains, above n 11, 374.
[34] However, there are areas of cyberspace activity, where self-regulation would clearly not work, such as electronic commerce, fraud or other criminal activity.
[35] See for example, David Post and David R. Johnson, "Law and Borders: The Rise of Law in Cyberspace" (1996) 48 Stanford Law Review, 1367. Also available on http://www.tau.ac.il/~nimrodk/bibli-huva/Borders.html
[36] David Post, "Governing Cyberspace" (This article was to appear in Fall 1997 in Wayne Law Review).
[37] F. Gregory Lastowka, "Search Engines, HTML, and Trademarks: What's the Meta For?" (2000) 86 Virginia Law Review 835.
[38] David Post, "Governing Cyberspace" above n 36.