This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Intellectual Property

Apr. 22, 2000

Last Squat

Pratitioner: Intellectual Property By Robert Barnes In the four months since its enactment, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 106-113, has armed the federal courts with potent new powers to cancel and transfer domain names, impose stiff statutory and other damages, award attorney fees and hear cases under in rem jurisdiction.

By Robert Barnes
        In the four months since its enactment, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 106-113, has armed the federal courts with potent new powers to cancel and transfer domain names, impose stiff statutory and other damages, award attorney fees and hear cases under in rem jurisdiction.
         Three...

To continue reading, please subscribe.

Already a subscriber?

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)