The Anti Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Acttrademark law
In order to determine that a violation of acceptable trademark law had occurred, the provisions of the Anti Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act provided for the detection of “bad faith” on the part of the defendant. One way in which such a quality could be determined was the presence of evidence that the domain name owner was not interested in using the registered domain name for its own merits, but acquired it solely as a commodity to sell to a prospective domain name owner with more of a practical stake in ownership.
The use of a previously trademarked domain name might be permissible under trademark law, however, in a case in which the operator of the website in question was operating it toward the end of some legitimate business purpose. Domaining might be argued to constitute an acceptable end for the acquisition of a domain name, despite the emphasis of the business model on the act of simply attracting users to the website and consequent lack of interest in the specific content desired by such users.
In cases in which the sheer number of websites created for the purposes of domaining, or the similarity of the domain names to previously established trademarks, exceeded permissible standards under the Anti Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, then domaining has been determined to have taken place in bad faith.
Domaining is frequently objected against due to the volume at which it can occur. The utility of the Anti Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act can be limited in regard to the practice of domaining. In the interests of discouraging abuses, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICAA), the procedural alternative to the legal protection system offered by the Anti Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, raised the fees required for registering domain names.