See a pro se litigant and a bank’s lawyer argue about the ACPA.
I write about many Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) cases. But I’ve never watched parties argue a cybersquatting case in court.
Courtroom Explained recently published an edited video of a 2023 hearing in Nebraska involving the domain name CharterWestBank.com. A disgruntled customer registered the domain name to create what he called a gripe site about CharterWest Bank after it denied his mortgage application.
A Nebraska state court ruled that he violated the ACPA with his registration. He appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court as a pro se litigant.
In the video, you see the bank’s lawyer fumbling over questions about what qualifies as a gripe site, what harm the bank was facing, and if it had a trademark for its bank name.
It lacked a registered mark and made a weak argument for common law rights. Its evidence was less than that provided by many complainants in UDRP proceedings who are arguing for common law marks.
The court ruled in the registrant’s favor, finding that the bank failed to show it had trademark rights in the term. It overturned the lower court’s decision.
Today, the domain resolves to a site with resources for pro se litigants.
(Hat tip to Bill Sweetman of Name Ninja.)
Here’s the video:
