PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House amendments to Senate bill.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 21, 1999
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act - Amends the Trademark Act of 1946 to prescribe statutory damages in a case involving the registration or use of an Internet domain name or other identifier of an online location that is: (1) the trademark of a person or entity other than the person or entity registering or using the identifier; or (2) sufficiently similar to a trademark of a person or entity other than the person or entity registering or using the identifier as to be likely to cause confusion or mistake, deceive, or cause dilution of the distinctive quality of a famous trademark.Allows a plaintiff to elect, at any time before a court renders final judgment, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, statutory damages in an amount of: (1) at least $1,000 and up to $100,000 per trademark per identifier, as the court considers just; or (2) at least $3,000 and up to $300,000 per trademark per identifier, as the court considers just if it finds that the registration or use of the registered trademark as an identifier was willful.Amends the Federal criminal code to establish as a Class B misdemeanor (or a Class E felony if at least a second offense in trafficking in counterfeit goods or services) the knowing and fraudulent or bad faith registration or use of a counterfeit trademark as a domain name. Specifies circumstances constituting prima facie evidence of fraud or bad faith.Directs U.S. Sentencing Commission to: (1) review the Federal sentencing guidelines for crimes against intellectual property; and (2) promulgate amendments to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines necessary to ensure that the applicable sentence for a defendant convicted of a crime against intellectual property is sufficiently stringent to deter it.Amends the Trademark Act of 1946 to shield from liability for monetary relief, regardless of whether the domain name or other identifier is ultimately determined to be infringing or dilutive, any Internet service provider, domain name registrar, or registry that, upon receipt of a written notice from the owner of a registered trademark, removes from domain name service (DNS) service or registration, or transfers to the trademark owner, an Internet domain name or other online location identifier alleged to be infringing or dilutive in compliance with: (1) a court order; or (2) reasonable implementation of a policy prohibiting the unauthorized registration or use of another's registered trademark as an Internet domain name or other online location identifier.
People & committees
Sen. Abraham, Spencer [R-MI] · R–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House amendments to Senate bill.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
The title of the measure was amended to that of similar measure H.R. 3028. Agreed to without objection.
A similar measure H.R. 3028 was laid on the table without objection.
On passage Passed without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed without objection.
The House struck all after the enacting clause and inserted in lieu thereof the provisions of a similar measure H.R. 3028. Agreed to without objection.
Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR H10830-10831)
Mr. Coble asked unanimous consent to discharge from committee and consider.
Committee on Judiciary discharged.
Committee on Judiciary discharged.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.
Held at the desk.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
The committee substitute as amended agreed to by Unanimous Consent.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S10513-10520)
By Senator Hatch from Committee on Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 106-140.
By Senator Hatch from Committee on Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 106-140.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 240.
Committee on Judiciary. Reported to Senate by Senator Hatch with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Judiciary. Reported to Senate by Senator Hatch with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 106-687.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S8693-8694)
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S7334-7336)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1255 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1255 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1255 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1255 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.