- The defendant has registered, trafficked in or used a domain name.
- That domain is identical or confusingly similar to a mark owned by the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff’s mark was distinctive when the defendant registered the domain name.
- The defendant acted in bad faith in an attempt to profit from the plaintiff’s mark.
- Intent to divert traffic to a website in a way that would harm the trademark owner, either financially or by damaging the trademark owner’s reputation.
- Offering to sell the domain name without having used or intended to use it for a legitimate business reason.
- Warehousing of multiple domains that are identical or confusingly similar to distinctive or famous marks. While cybersquatters once skirted liability by not initiating the sale of a domain, simply sitting on these marks now qualifies as bad faith.
- The extent to which the domain is related to a distinctive or famous mark. In other words, bad faith is more likely to be established when the mark is very well known.
- Intentionally providing misleading information when the domain is registered.
- The registrant owns a trademark or other intellectual property rights in the domain.
- The domain name is the legal name or nickname of the registrant.
- The registrant has previously used the domain name lawfully and in good faith.
- The registrant establishes lawful noncommercial or fair use of the mark on a website reached through the domain – unless it is determined that the cybersquatter’s intent is to sell.
