Beginning Next Week: InsideCounsel will become part of Corporate Counsel. Bringing these two industry-leading websites together will now give you comprehensive coverage of the full spectrum of issues affecting today's General Counsel at companies of all sizes. You will continue to receive expert analysis on key issues including corporate litigation, labor developments, tech initiatives and intellectual property, as well as Women, Influence & Power in Law (WIPL) professional development content. Plus we'll be serving all ALM legal publications from one interconnected platform, powered by, giving you easy access to additional relevant content from other InsideCounsel sister publications.

To prevent a disruption in service, you will be automatically redirected to the new site next week. Thank you for being a valued InsideCounsel reader!


Aggressive Procedure

One federal statute clearly authorizes private parties to bring in rem actions in order to seize domain names. The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) authorizes such suits against only domain names that infringe trademark rights (such as The statute does not cover noninfringing domain names (such as, even if websites that sell infringing articles use those domain names.

In its lawsuit, Chanel has seized both infringing and noninfringing domain names. That’s beyond the scope of ACPA.

Even if ACPA applied to all the seized domains, Chanel and the court haven’t followed ACPA’s procedures for seizing domain names, according to many experts. For instance, “a plaintiff must show it can’t obtain in personam jurisdiction before it can bring an in rem suit. That wasn’t done here,” says Venkat Balasubramani, a partner in Focal PLLC.

And ACPA authorizes seizures only when a court has rendered a final verdict. In Chanel’s suit, the seizures occurred in the lawsuit’s initial stages—“something ACPA clearly does not authorize,” says Balasubramani.

Join the Conversation

Advertisement. Closing in 15 seconds.