Jinku Hwang


The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) was enacted in 1999 as a response to international disputes over Internet domain names because according to the Congress’ point of view, courts could not successfully protected American businesses in cases where nothing more that the registration of a trademark or its variation in a domain name had occurred. This article analyzes recent court decisions regarding domain name disputes after the enactment of ACPA focusing on reverse domain name hijacking in international, trademark related and gTLD disputes. The author argues that the in rem jurisdiction provided by the ACPA and the consequent extraterritorial effect of U.S. Trademark law is problematic and is likely to cause tension and conflict with other countries in the context of international jurisdiction because while it subjects to U.S. law all foreign infringers, it fails to give same amount of protection to foreign trademark rights infringed by U.S. registrants in the U.S. courts. Therefore it is argued that the ACPA in rem jurisdiction should be restrictively and possible ways to minimize conflicts with other countries are suggested.