[3] Critics of the ACPA complain about the non-global scope of the Act and its potential to restrict free speech,[4] while others dispute these complaints.
[6] The legislative history of the FTDA specifically mentions that trademark dilution in domain names was a matter of Congressional concern motivating the Act.
[7] Senator Leahy stated that "it is my hope that this anti-dilution statute can help stem the use of deceptive Internet addresses taken by those who are choosing marks that are associated with the products and reputations of others".
[16] "Defendant's motive for registering the disputed domain names was to express his customer dissatisfaction through the medium of the Internet.
[19] The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals caused a stir in 2013 when it held, in Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) v. GoDaddy.com, 737 F.3d 546 (9th Cir.
It so held notwithstanding the extensive body of case law permitting such liability where a registrar is shown to have acted outside the normal ministerial bounds of domain registration.
[20] It also relied on Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver and premised on the Circuit Court's determination that the ACPA is not part of the Lanham Act and therefore not included in the rule permitting secondary liability for trademark infringement enunciated in Inwood Labs v. Ives Labs, 456 U.S. 844 (1982).
[23] Instead of suing in federal court under the ACPA, a trademark owner can choose to pursue an administrative proceeding under ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).
[25] This practice was largely eliminated by 2009, when ICANN began raising fees to registrars with excessive domain tasting.
[27] One of the defendants, Basic Fusion, Inc. argued that they were not cybersquatters, but as an Internet registrar accredited by ICANN they could register domain names on behalf of its customers and it specialized in "bulk registration".
[28] The Court found that defendants used the confusingly similar domain names with a bad faith intent to profit.