Why, When and How Michael Jackson Domains will sell

[TheRealDomainer]

Domain business is one business that is very dynamic. As you read this, the whole world are interested in making money from domain. And one of the ways to make money in this niche is using trend.

When it was George Bush as president fighting with opposition, impeachgeorgebush.com sold for over $9000.

When it was Obama winning presidency, Obama domains sold

When a legend as Jackson finally bows out, Jackson's name will sell...

Why? He is a model, a legend, a brand etc
How?: Sell through ebay, sitepoint, sedo, afternic etc
When? Now that the trend is hot.

The type of names that you can register and sell includes:
michaeljacksonisdead.com
michaeljacksonburrial.com
michaeljacksonsecrets.com
michaeljacksonfamily.com
michaeljacksonthelegend.com
michaeljacksonsickness.com
michaeljacksongossip.com
michaeljacksontruestory.com
michaeljacksonskin.com
michaeljacksondisease.com
michaeljacksoncult.com
michaeljacksonimmortalized.com
everythingmichaeljackson.com
michaeljacksonlastmoments.com
michaeljacksonwishes.com
michaeljacksondream.com
michaeljacksonregrets.com
michaeljacksonfears.com
michaeljacksonlies.com
michaeljacksoncolor.com
michaeljacksonnose.com
michaeljacksonlives.com


Henry Omenogor

[Mark Brian]

This is a fine line between ethics and marketing. I know there's business if there's a demand. We know there will be an influx of MJ queries in Google in the comings weeks, months, or even years... but sometimes cashing on someone's recent death is not my type of thing. Maybe not at this very moment, maybe after a couple of months it will be "less unethical" but at this very moment, this is disrespectful in my books.

[bryce]

Each to his own I guess, but in a market such as this - "you snooze, you lose" - Personally I love MJ and his music, moves and performances. I grew up with him and I think he got a rough deal for a lot of years. BUT...... I did register two domain names myself tonight, and I can tell whoever is reading this thread that most of them are already taken.

Someone or people were very busy indeed signing up for the domain names. I have seen the listings in ebay (search: Michael Jackson Domain Names) and there were 100 when I checked. Some have BINs of millions of dollars, and some have $5000, $50,000, $200,000, etc etc.

Time will tell, there were no bids, but anyone can agree there will be billions of hits on the search term in the coming days.

This in my opinion is not "disrespectful" unless you are doing something disrespectful with the domain. In the world we live in, it is business.

[Alan Petersen]

People need to do their due diligence to make sure they're not violating trademark or copyrighted brands. The name of "Michael Jackson" might fall under that umbrella and his estate might not be to keen towards cybersquatters violating their trademarks/brand.

I'm not saying that's an issue here, I have not checked and I have no interest so I won't but people should check before you go register all those domains and end up gettin them taken from you in a WIPO arbitration.

[bryce]

Originally Posted by Alan Petersen

People need to do their due diligence to make sure they're not violating trademark or copyrighted brands. The name of "Michael Jackson" might fall under that umbrella and his estate might not be to keen towards cybersquatters violating their trademarks/brand.

I'm not saying that's an issue here, I have not checked and I have no interest so I won't but people should check before you go register all those domains and end up gettin them taken from you in a WIPO arbitration.

This is an interesting point, but I wonder how someone can claim copyright infringement for a name? What about all the other Michael Jacksons in the world??

The other thing is that the Michael Jackson in the cases listed above is only a part of a total package. The domain name is NOT Michael Jackson, but someting else entirely. As I said, interesting - and maybe someone can enlighten us further as this thread develops.

[Alan Petersen]

Originally Posted by bryce

This is an interesting point, but I wonder how someone can claim copyright infringement for a name? What about all the other Michael Jacksons in the world??

The other thing is that the Michael Jackson in the cases listed above is only a part of a total package. The domain name is NOT Michael Jackson, but someting else entirely. As I said, interesting - and maybe someone can enlighten us further as this thread develops.

I'm not a lawyer or anything nor do I play one on the forums ...but I think it has to do with intent. If someone registers MichaelJacksonPopStar.com the intent is clear you're trying to profit from MJ the artist not MJ the plumber. I recalled there was a case with the actress Julia Roberts so I googled it. She took JuliaRoberts.com away from a speculator. This is old but it set the standard:

Another big hit for Julia Roberts | Tech News on ZDNet

I know several folks who got C&D letters when they setup eBay niche stores with brand names in the domain. An apple is just an apple but if you register AppleComputers.com they might come knocking.

[uclaboyz]

Don't do it...

His name is trademaked... Just do a search:

Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)

[ebuyer123]

Originally Posted by bryce

This is an interesting point, but I wonder how someone can claim copyright infringement for a name? What about all the other Michael Jacksons in the world??

Your website content will give away that the Michael Jackson on your site is indeeded the legendary pop king Michael Jackson who has died recently.

R.I.P Jacko...

Regards,

ebuyer123

[Tyrus Antas]

You can't make money out of other people's trademarks and that certainly includes websites. You can make an informational website, and as long as you don't profit from it you're fine. But then, what's the point in doing the site in the first place?

Tyrus

[ebuyer123]

Originally Posted by Tyrus Antas

You can't make money out of other people's trademarks and that certainly includes websites.

In the News...

Jennifer Lopez Wins Lawsuit Over Website Domains

[Revolves]

I saw plenty of people waste tons of money on obama domains. Not to mention ebay's listing fees. Most of the threads on ebay went without bids.

I don't think selling trademarked domains is the right way to go.


One more thing is that you cannot sell a trademarked domain to someone and then wash your hands of it. Sites like domaintools.com keep a whois history database and it will easily help anyone trace it back to the original registrant.

Names even sounding similar have been hauled up for trademark infringement.
Mikecrewsoft is a classic example.

[TheRealDomainer]

Trademark?
Cybersquatting?
Brand?

You must look at these three very critical as a domainer.

You can register and make money with Michael Jackson domains...
Its trendy
Its news
Its hot
Its in demand
Its SEO friendly now
Its not related to his trademark
There are other Michael Jackson

[Alan Petersen]

Personal names are specifically protected from cybersquatting under the APCA:

Cybersquatting & Domain Name Dispute Attorneys - Trademarks, Domain Theft

You could lose, you could win the dispute but people should be informed.

Yes there are millions of other Michael Jackson's out there. If my name is Michael Jackson and I have my personal blog my chances are good. If I register it to cash in on Michael Jackson the pop singer like the OP is suggesting you're showing your intent of trying to profit from the celebrity's name. You can't play dumb during a WIPO dispute.

I mean worse case they yank your domain it's not like you'll go to jail. I'm just saying people should know what they're getting into.

[MichaelHiles]

As purely a speculative thing... I mean... everyone is going to die sometime, right? Who are some other super famous people that this could work for... restinpeacebarakobama.com... errr.... the SS will probably kick down my door and shoot my dog wanting to know why I registered something like that.... nevermind...

[Asher]

Originally Posted by TheRealDomainer

You can register and make money with Michael Jackson domains...
Its trendy
Its news
Its hot
Its in demand
Its SEO friendly now
Its not related to his trademark
There are other Michael Jackson

You're wrong... there's no "other" Michael Jackson when
it comes to sites like this.

As Alan Petersen kindly pointed out in several of his
responses, you can't just use a stupid explanation like
"but I'm not talking about THAT Michael Jackson" when
you get charged in court.

My $0.02

Asher

[uclaboyz]

Trademarks can be renewed even though the natural person died... so, still not a good idea.

Target.com and Target.org are owned by two different persons - very interesting domain dispute case:

IDN Domain Names and Registration Primer - Guru Consulting Services

What sucks about these illegitimate domains is that these cybersquatters will offload them to another innocent buyer before the trademark owner can issue a C&D letter (and guess who gets the C&D letter?)

Earn money the hard way and you'll sleep better at night

Thanks,
Steve

[TheFounding]

I got on the ball a bit late, as I found out about Jackson's death while at the gym and not at my computer. But I got it in time to register both michaeljacksonsdeathchronicles.blogspot.com and deadcelebritiesresource.blogspot.com.

Yes, I know that they are both only Blogspot subdomains, but it appears that everyone else ate up the domains on GoDaddy and NameCheap.

But who knows, they may monetize. Now, I'm fully aware that dead celebrity hype, even the King of Pop, disappears after a while, as do the profits, but that's why I grabbed the Dead Celebrity Resource.

[ebuyer123]

Originally Posted by TheRealDomainer

You can register and make money with Michael Jackson domains...
Its trendy
Its news
Its hot
Its in demand
Its SEO friendly now
Its not related to his trademark
There are other Michael Jackson

But your website content is about Michael Jackson the pop king?

Don't talking BS here, mate..!
Some newbies might read your post here and landed their bums on a pile of hot coal by following your advice.

[Tim Franklin]

Wow, lots of legal gurus here, but and I stress this to the tenth power, until you actually talk to a lawyer, then it means about one once of chicken spit.

Chicken spit as anyone knows is useless to most people unless you are a chicken then sometimes chicken spit can be very useful but I have no idea about that but I am sure that if I hang here long enough I will find someone that does.

The problem with legal want to be opinions is that most of the time they are based on what they think,

That is a real problem because the law is comprised of words not thoughts.

So it is painfully obvious that most of the opinions here are not based on law nor are they based on anyones actual reading of the same.

To be honest I dont know where to start with the last post it is completely wrong in every way, imaginable, I would first object that the petitioner has not made a proper foundation for the argument, after that it would all be down hill.

But seriously folks, do you really think that these people have nothing better to do than to police the Internet for non existent TM violations, I mean TM means as many of you are no doubt aware, is a trade mark,

A mark means a written or other wise recognizable marking which is usually associated with a logo.

IN case this escapes anyone here, a TM is not a website nor does it remotely resemble said same.

Wow, I must have had too much coffee, just cant believe some of the junk you see these days.

[ebuyer123]

The post #21 is full with BS!

Just follow the link below and read it with your two golf eye balls

Jennifer Lopez Wins Lawsuit Over Website Domains

[Tim Franklin]

See what I mean pure chicken spit

[Tim Franklin]

Opps now you have gone and done it,

First move to America and read a few law books then come back here and lecture me about the law.

I recommend reading corporate law first then I would say that you should start reading the UCC which regulates trade and most commerce in this country, thats USA to most canadians.

Second, you really need to understand what you are talking about to begin with, trade marks are not covered under the legal definition in the way that you are trying to apply it,

simply put, you dont know what you are talking about, I do.

in Texas we take the bull by the horns not sure how that work up where you are, but for sure dude, you have to understand the law first before you go and tell other people what it means.

Originally Posted by healymedia

Would you at all care to actually provide some information or are you just trolling this thread?

If you have some sort of information that refutes the fact that using MJs name for profit without his permission is a violation of his TM, then I'm sure everyone here would benefit from knowing it.

Or you can just keep up the useless comments and add nothing.

Whichever.

[ebuyer123]

Originally Posted by Tim Franklin

See what I mean pure chicken spit

Again... you may want to read these sentences with your two golf eye balls and stop your BS...

If your search turns up any names that are the same or similar to your proposed domain name, ask these questions:

- Will your website offer goods or services that compete with the goods or services being sold under the similar domain name?

- Will your website offer goods or services that typically are distributed in the same channels as the goods or services being sold under the similar domain name? This would be the case, for instance, if you plan to offer sports equipment on your website, and the owner of the possibly conflicting name sells sports clothing.

- Could your website divert business away from the site with the similar name? Is your domain name so similar to the other domain name that users might end up on your website by mistake?

- Is the other name well known?

Source: FindLaw.com - Avoid Trademark Infringement When You Choose a Domain Name

[Tim Franklin]

We have both communicated by private message, and I see no reason to continue posting it is obvious that neither of us is going to come around to the others thinking on this issue, so for the sake of the community, I retire....

You sir may have your way...

To everyone else have a nice day...

[ebuyer123]

Originally Posted by Onslaught

I have some issues With MJ but this thread is making me
ill. I know business is a cold beast but some things need
to be left alone.

I know of other ways to make money that I can feel good about

fuc-ing bottomfeeders...

You're a STAR, man

[Tim Franklin]

Gentlemen, I invite you to put your weapons of war away and from the hearth stay away for in these times we often stand not knowing how we will ever end.

If you doubt my words I invite you to read this thread because there is little in this world that is ever truly understood by those that stand in the midst of the soil and toil with the world you can never hold.

tyranny

[uzomaeze]

interesting post here, also I can see that we have guru's in law telling us what is right and what is wrong, I once cashed in on the obama hype especially when he became president, the only advice i would give is be wise, yes I wanted to register michaeljacksonisdead.com, I would have been the first to register it, but I gave it a taught and decided to let go (may his soul rest in peace).. don't want to cash in on a man who was never really happy with life ...

[davezan]

Originally Posted by Tim Franklin

A mark means a written or other wise recognizable marking which is usually associated with a logo.

Or specifically in the U.S., especially uspto.gov:

FAQ t120050- USPTO

A trademark includes any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination used, or intended to be used, in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods.

One need only do a trademark search at uspto.gov, as another posted, to see
that the name Michael Jackson is indeed a registered trademark:

Word Mark MICHAEL JACKSON
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 026 036 038. G & S: sound recordings; namely, pre-recorded phonograph records, audio tapes, compact discs, videotapes, and motion picture films featuring music and entertainment. FIRST USE: 19850101. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19850101
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 74398145
Filing Date June 3, 1993
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition May 9, 1995
Registration Number 1908209
Registration Date August 1, 1995
Owner (REGISTRANT) Triumph International, Inc. CORPORATION CALIFORNIA c/o ALVIN MALNIK 6301 N. OCEAN BLVD. OCEAN RIDGE FLORIDA 33435
Attorney of Record KATHERINE L. MCDANIEL
Prior Registrations 1443941
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20040918.
Renewal 1ST RENEWAL 20040918
Other Data The name shown in the mark, identifies a living individual whose consent is of record.
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Oh, and uspto.gov search results links expire. Time will tell if the registration
above will be renewed, but...trademarks don't exactly require registration just
to exist:

Trademark FAQ

What are common law rights?

Federal registration is not required to establish rights in a trademark. Common law rights arise from actual use of a mark.

As long as the name Michael Jackson is being used to sell music merchandise,
then it's virtually a trademark. At least in countries like the U.S. and U.K.

Oh, and there's various domain name decisions involving names as a few have
posted here. I don't know why that Jennifer Lopez case is so-called "chicken
spit" or whatever meaning was intended, unless one seeks an actual decision
involving a domain bearing the Michael Jackson trademark name?

Currently I haven't found any. If anyone with any of those domain names are
contacted by Michael Jackson's handlers or heirs demanding them or face any
possible penalties, indeed talk to a lawyer rather than listen to chicken spat
of just about any non-legal member of an online forum.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I know lots who do these things for a living whom
I've listed in my blog. Feel free to check any of them out if you're up to it.

As for those pondering what the OP started here, and as another member has
since said, indeed be aware of what you're getting yourself into. Enjoy while
you can if you do, and I seriously hope you will not complain about this online
if someone else potentially holds you liable for your actions.

After all, we're all accountable for what we do especially in the real world that
we all live in. If you won't hold yourself accountable, someone else just might
do that...and you probably won't like it.

I don't recall ignorance ever excusing anyone, law or otherwise, though.

[Bruce Wedding]

This is not a business model. It's a quick fix.

I can see your business plan:

"We sit around and wait for someone famous to die, then grab up all the domains and sell them for a sweet profit."

[NickR06]

This concept of making money from a dead mans name and
achievements makes me ill. Zero dignity!!

[scottty64]

its insensitve to say the least but that will never stop those who try to cash in on someone else's tragedy.

[Didier Faucher]

Originally Posted by bryce

This is an interesting point, but I wonder how someone can claim copyright infringement for a name?

See this, for example:
The Roger Richman Agency

"The Roger Richman Agency specializes in representing entertainment
and historic personalities for a variety of licensing applications, including
advertising, merchandising, premiums, promotions, film and television
programming, theatrical productions, gaming, computer games, and look-
alike/sound-alike services. Exclusive licenses are available in most product
and service categories. Licenses include full persona usage, consisting of
name, voice, signature and image (photo, illustration, animation and/or look-
alike)."


Didier

[Bruce Wedding]

Hey business is booming in the "make money from tragic celebrity death" world!

[Charles Featherstone]

Interesting stuff, I looked into it just out of curiosity and the domains were gone within seconds. Crazy stuff folks...

[john_kennedy]

Originally Posted by Tim Franklin

Wow, lots of legal gurus here, but and I stress this to the tenth power, until you actually talk to a lawyer, then it means about one once of chicken spit.

Chicken spit as anyone knows is useless to most people unless you are a chicken then sometimes chicken spit can be very useful but I have no idea about that but I am sure that if I hang here long enough I will find someone that does.

The problem with legal want to be opinions is that most of the time they are based on what they think,

That is a real problem because the law is comprised of words not thoughts.

So it is painfully obvious that most of the opinions here are not based on law nor are they based on anyones actual reading of the same.

To be honest I dont know where to start with the last post it is completely wrong in every way, imaginable, I would first object that the petitioner has not made a proper foundation for the argument, after that it would all be down hill.

But seriously folks, do you really think that these people have nothing better to do than to police the Internet for non existent TM violations, I mean TM means as many of you are no doubt aware, is a trade mark,

A mark means a written or other wise recognizable marking which is usually associated with a logo.

IN case this escapes anyone here, a TM is not a website nor does it remotely resemble said same.

Wow, I must have had too much coffee, just cant believe some of the junk you see these days.

Tell you what. Register a domain name with the letters "ebay" anywhere in the name and see how fast you get a letter from ebay's lawyer! I had a client with the domain name gymboreebay.com. As I was the registrar of record, I was the one who received the letter. They were quite explicit about what remedies they were prepared to take should we decide to proceed with that name.

John

[kindsvater]

I like chicken soup, so let me add my .02:

1. People tend to confuse a trademark with some monopoly or exclusive right to even mention the word.

You see this all the time, such as ignorant affiliate managers or even some attorneys trying to intimidate in a C&D knowing they will never file an action but still be able to persuade control of a domain.

Apple. GM. Microsoft.

Just used a few trademarks there. No liability. And no liability even though mentioning their trademarks is on a post where I have signature-line links to products I have for sell.

Even Amazon is using the 'Michael Jackson' name all over the place to profit from. No liability.

2. The domain name disputes typically involve just the person's name (eg, juliaroberts.com), as opposed to a descriptive domains (eg, juliarobertsmovielist.com) It is a lot easier to win a case on the former than the latter.

Personally, I would have no problem registering something like juliarobertsmovielist.com and putting up an affiliate site.

3. What usually happens is that the person receiving a C&D quickly knuckles under. They either voluntarily give in, or, if a legal claim is filed, they default and do not contest the matter.

While not having conducted a scientific study, I'd say trademark holders lose most, if not almost all, domain based trademark claims when a defense is raised.

Interestingly, I've seen a number of trademark owners lose even default actions over domain names.

Personally, when providing a client response to a C&D letter, I've never seen a trademark owner pursue their 'threats.' Often, they're the ones slinking away never to be heard from again.

4. Of course, this can be a high risk game not everyone wants to play. Most domains are not worth paying for a legal defense. On the other hand, suing a big company and their counsel for extortion or malicious prosecution could be very profitable.

5. Here's a very short list of companies that like to make threats that you should seriously question, and possibly have your own attorney look to evaluate: Playboy, eBay.

[UKTim29]

Originally Posted by TheRealDomainer

Trademark?
Cybersquatting?
Brand?

You must look at these three very critical as a domainer.

You can register and make money with Michael Jackson domains...
Its not related to his trademark
There are other Michael Jackson

That just seems deluded!

Of course it's a trademark! As mentioned above. For example, if you do this as someone said, you're blatently targeting MJ the pop star, not MJ the plumber!!!!!!

[UKTim29]

Originally Posted by Tim Franklin

But seriously folks, do you really think that these people have nothing better to do than to police the Internet for non existent TM violations, I mean TM means as many of you are no doubt aware, is a trade mark,

A mark means a written or other wise recognizable marking which is usually associated with a logo.

IN case this escapes anyone here, a TM is not a website nor does it remotely resemble said same.

Wow, I must have had too much coffee, just cant believe some of the junk you see these days.

It goes down to basically a business risk. Will you make more money than you can get (even though it's a risk) sued for?

For the average person in this case I very much doubt it!

Come on, you've got to admit thats true!

[Star Riley]

Originally Posted by MichaelHiles

As purely a speculative thing... I mean... everyone is going to die sometime, right? Who are some other super famous people that this could work for... restinpeacebarakobama.com... errr.... the SS will probably kick down my door and shoot my dog wanting to know why I registered something like that.... nevermind...

wonder how many other people have that name now? lol

[ebuyer123]

2. The domain name disputes typically involve just the person's name (eg, juliaroberts.com), as opposed to a descriptive domains (eg, juliarobertsmovielist.com) It is a lot easier to win a case on the former than the latter.

Personally, I would have no problem registering something like juliarobertsmovielist.com and putting up an affiliate site.

It all come down to the CONTENT of your website, mate.
Judges in the courthouses aren't feeding on BS,
and they know who is who and who isn't who.

Just my 2 cents.

[NijThinkIt]

In terms of a morale issue with using his name, I believe it depends on what you do with the money.

If you buy an MJ name and make a load of money from it, but you invest it back into helping people become better people, or you give it to his charity, then its a fair distribution of wealth.

If you use it for pure selfish and material reasons then the karma will get you

[sbucciarel]

Originally Posted by bryce

This is an interesting point, but I wonder how someone can claim copyright infringement for a name? What about all the other Michael Jacksons in the world??

The other thing is that the Michael Jackson in the cases listed above is only a part of a total package. The domain name is NOT Michael Jackson, but someting else entirely. As I said, interesting - and maybe someone can enlighten us further as this thread develops.

DOMAIN REGISTRATION OF CELEBRITY NAMES: BOOM OR BUST?

Current U.S. Trademark Law as It Pertains to Names of Individuals

The Trademark Act protects the exclusive rights of a commercial trademark owner in words or symbols. The Act's "right of privacy" provision, however, prohibits federal registration of any mark which:

Consists of or comprises a name, portrait or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent, or the name, signature or portrait of a deceased President of the United States during the life of his widow, if any, except by the written consent of the widow.

This section prevents registration of marks identifying any particular living individual, except with the consent of that person. Note that it does not apply to deceased persons. The Act assumes that all living persons are considered to have a proprietary right in the designations that identify them, their names, portraits and signatures. The Trademark Act itself, therefore, does not provide protection by statute for the use of an individual's name as a domain name. The Anti-Cybersquatting Act, however, contains a specific provision addressing the names of individuals.

The New Act's Protection of "Living Individuals" as Well as Trademarks

The Anti-Cybersquatting Act forbids trademark cybersquatting if the offender:

(i) Has a bad faith intent to profit from a mark protected by Section 43 (of the Lanham Act), and (ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that is:

(A) identical or confusingly similar to a distinctive mark;
(B) identical, confusingly similar, or dilutive of a famous mark; or
(C) is protected under 18 U.S.C. 706 (Red Cross) or 36 U.S.C. 220506 (Olympics and related marks).

The Act goes on to state:

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.

At first glance, this provision would seem to be a strong prohibition against the use of a person's individual name as a domain name. This provision of the Anti-Cybersquatting Act is different from the stronger portion of the Act that prohibits the use of trademarks as domain names, however. In order to find liability, a plaintiff would have to prove that the registration of the domain name was made "with the specific intent to profit from such name by selling the domain name." The registrant's own "subjective intent" to profit from the sale of the domain name must be proved. Furthermore, if by coincidence the registrant bears the same individual name as the challenger, serious questions arise as to whether the "subjective intent" to sell pertains to the protected name of the challenger rather than the name of the registrant. In other words, ordinary people who bear the same name as people of notoriety would be permitted to register and re-sell their names as domain names.

The violation of a person's individual name as opposed to a trademark also draws less penalty than an act of cybersquatting on someone's trademark. With respect to an individual's name, the aggrieved individual is entitled to an injunction ordering cancellation or transfer of the domain name, as well as costs and attorneys' fees. In the case of trademark cybersquatting, the plaintiff would be entitled to defendant's profits and up to three times provable damages. One of the first tests of the new Anti-Cybersquatting Act has been lodged by singer John Tesh.