When is cybersquatting considered illegal?

When is cybersquatting considered illegal?

• A. Only if the domain name is unique
• B. It is not illegal in any case
• C. When the name is confusingly similar with bad faith intent
• D. When trademark owners authorize its use

Answer: (C)

Cybersquatting is considered illegal when the domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark and the individual registering the domain does so with bad faith intent. This means that if someone registers a domain name that closely resembles a trademarked name with the intention of profiting from the confusion it creates—such as selling the domain to the legitimate trademark owner or using it to mislead consumers into thinking they are interacting with the trademark owner—this constitutes cybersquatting. The practice is addressed by the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) in the United States, which protects trademark owners from this type of misuse of domain names. To establish a case of cybersquatting under the ACPA, it must be proven that the domain name is similar enough to the trademark to cause confusion and that there was intent to profit from that confusion. Other options don't align with the legal framework surrounding cybersquatting. The idea of a domain name being unique does not specifically pertain to the illegality of cybersquatting since similarities rather than uniqueness are at the core of such cases. Claiming that it is not illegal in any case contradicts the established law, and authorization by trademark owners negates the possibility of cybersquatting, as consent removes any

Cybersquatting is considered illegal when the domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark and the individual registering the domain does so with bad faith intent. This means that if someone registers a domain name that closely resembles a trademarked name with the intention of profiting from the confusion it creates—such as selling the domain to the legitimate trademark owner or using it to mislead consumers into thinking they are interacting with the trademark owner—this constitutes cybersquatting.

The practice is addressed by the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) in the United States, which protects trademark owners from this type of misuse of domain names. To establish a case of cybersquatting under the ACPA, it must be proven that the domain name is similar enough to the trademark to cause confusion and that there was intent to profit from that confusion.

Other options don't align with the legal framework surrounding cybersquatting. The idea of a domain name being unique does not specifically pertain to the illegality of cybersquatting since similarities rather than uniqueness are at the core of such cases. Claiming that it is not illegal in any case contradicts the established law, and authorization by trademark owners negates the possibility of cybersquatting, as consent removes any