Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act:  A federal statute enacted in 1999 as an amendment to the Trademark Act of 1946, the ACPA is intended to give trademark owners enhanced remedies against people who register Internet domains that infringe upon federal trademark rights.  The elements a plaintiff must establish to prevail under the ACPA are roughly analogous to those under the UDRP

 

Unlike the UDRP, a proceeding under the ACPA is a traditional lawsuit filed in the U.S. federal courts.  As such, litigation costs will be higher than those under the UDRP, and the time to resolution may be significantly longer.  However, also unlike the UDRP, trademark owners may recover money damages in addition to obtaining transfer or cancellation of the domain.  The trademark owner may recover the defendant's profits, damages, and costs, and the court may treble the actual damages and award attorneys fees in appropriate cases.  The ACPA also gives trademark owners the option to choose at any time prior to a judgment, to elect either actual damages and profits, or statutory damages in an amount between $1,000 and $100,000 per domain, in the court's discretion.

 

The decision to proceed initially under the UDRP or the ACPA depends on a number of factors, but principally on the need for speed and whether the trademark owner is likely to be able to collect any damages that may be awarded.  If not, then the UDRP provides a significantly faster and less expensive alternative with the same effective result: transfer of the domain to the trademark owner.

 

The UDRP and ACPA are not mutually-exclusive.  A trademark owner who does not prevail under the UDRP may file a lawsuit under the ACPA, and the UDRP decision does not bind the court.