U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 107— PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— CYBERSQUATTING PROTECTION

15 U.S.C. § 8131

Cyberpiracy protections for individuals

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) In general(A) Civil liability

Any person who registers a domain name that consists of the name of another living person, or a name substantially and confusingly similar thereto, without that person’s consent, with the specific intent to profit from such name by selling the domain name for financial gain to that person or any third party, shall be liable in a civil action by such person.

(B) Exception

A person who in good faith registers a domain name consisting of the name of another living person, or a name substantially and confusingly similar thereto, shall not be liable under this paragraph if such name is used in, affiliated with, or related to a work of authorship protected under title 17, including a work made for hire as defined in section 101 of title 17, and if the person registering the domain name is the copyright owner or licensee of the work, the person intends to sell the domain name in conjunction with the lawful exploitation of the work, and such registration is not prohibited by a contract between the registrant and the named person. The exception under this subparagraph shall apply only to a civil action brought under paragraph (1) and shall in no manner limit the protections afforded under the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.) or other provision of Federal or State law.

(2) Remedies

In any civil action brought under paragraph (1), a court may award injunctive relief, including the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the plaintiff. The court may also, in its discretion, award costs and attorneys fees to the prevailing party.

(3) Definition

In this section, the term “domain name” has the meaning given that term in section 45 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1127).

(4) Effective date

This section shall apply to domain names registered on or after November 29, 1999.

(Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, § 1000(a)(9) [title III, § 3002(b)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–548.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Trademark Act of 1946, referred to in par. (1)(B), is act July 5, 1946, ch. 540, 60 Stat. 427, also popularly known as the Lanham Act, which is classified generally to chapter 22 (§ 1051 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1051 of this title and Tables.

Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 1129 of this title.

Section was enacted as part of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, and not as part of the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008, which comprises this chapter.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2010–2025 · leading case: David Maus v. John Patrick Ennis, 513 F. App'x 872 (11th Cir. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
David Maus v. John Patrick Ennis, 513 F. App'x 872 (11th Cir. 2013). · cites it 3× “§ 1125 (d) and Cyberpiracy Protection for Individuals (“CPI”), 15 U.S.C. § 8131 (2). On appeal, Ennis argues that the district court (1) erroneously sanctioned him with a default judgment without providing him with at least two opportunities to comply with a discovery order; (2)…”
Randazza v. Cox, 920 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (D. Nev. 2013). · cites it 8× “) After Defendants refused to transfer the Domain Names and to cease their infringing activity, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in this Court alleging six causes of action: (1) Violation of Individual Cyberpiracy Protections under 15 U.S.C. § 8131 ; (2) Cybersquatting under 15 U.”
Zinner v. Olenych, 108 F. Supp. 3d 369 (E.D. Va. 2015). · cites it 3× “In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 8131 (“section 8131”) by registering Plaintiffs name as the edzinner.”
GoPets Ltd. v. Hise, 657 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2011). “Like § 1125(d)(1), § 8131(1)(A) refers to "registration" without defining the term. The district court had held that re-registering the domain name to the corporation was not a registration within the meaning of § 8131(1)(A).”
United States v. MacIel-alcala, 612 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2010). “” The “cyberpiracy” statute, 15 U.S.C. § 8131 , imposes civil liability upon “[a]ny person who registers a domain name that consists of the name of another living person .”
Bogoni v. Gomez, 847 F. Supp. 2d 519 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). · cites it 4× “Governing Law The plaintiffs complaint, and motion for a preliminary injunction, contends that the *523 defendant’s conduct violates a provision of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 8131 , which provides cyberpiracy protections for individuals.”
Carl v. BernardJCarl.com, 409 F. App'x 628 (4th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “§ 1125 (d)(1), (2) (2006), the Lanham Act, federal anti-cyberpiracy law, 15 U.S.C.A. § 8131 (2010), and Virginia state law trademark and libel.”
Jon R. Tollefson v. DeAnn Marie Pladson, 508 F. App'x 593 (8th Cir. 2013). “Pladson counterclaimed under 15 U.S.C. § 8131 (cyberpiracy protections).”
United States v. MacIel-alcala, 598 F.3d 1239 (9th Cir. 2010). “” The “cyberpiraey” statute, 15 U.S.C. § 8131 , imposes civil liability upon “[a]ny person who registers a domain name that consists of the name of another living person .”
Bogoni v. Gomez, 840 F. Supp. 2d 694 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). · cites it 4× “Likelihood of Success on the Merits & Balance of Hardships A Governing Law The plaintiffs complaint, and motion for a preliminary injunction, contends that the defendant’s conduct violates a provision of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 8131 ,…”
Devine v. Wilson (E.D. Ark. 2024). · cites it 7× “Wilson and Sparky: “Violation of Cyberpiracy Protections for Individuals” under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 8131 (Count I); “Violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act” (“ADTPA”), Arkansas Code Annotated § 4-88-101 et seq.”
Boyko v. Kondratiev (D. Ariz. 2023). · cites it 2× “§ 1125 and cyberpiracy under 15 U.S.C. § 8131 . The 7 Court begins with the cybersquatting claim.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.