PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 28, 1999
Domain Name Piracy Prevention Act of 1999 - Amends the Trademark Act of 1946 to make liable in a civil action by the owner of a trademark or service mark distinctive at the time of domain name registration, any other person who, with bad-faith intent to profit from the goodwill of the owner's mark, registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that is identical to, confusingly similar to, or dilutive of such mark. Specifies factors for the court to consider in determining bad-faith intent.(Sec. 3) Authorizes a court to order the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or its transfer to the mark owner.Prescribes conditions for an in rem civil action, in addition to any other action, against a domain name by a mark owner. Limits remedies in an in rem action to a court order for the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or its transfer to the mark owner.(Sec. 4) Provides for statutory damages in an amount of at least $1,000 and up to $100,000 per domain name, as the court considers just. Requires the court to remit statutory damages if an infringer believed with reasonable grounds that use of the domain name was fair or otherwise lawful.(Sec. 5) Shields from liability for monetary relief, regardless of whether the domain name is finally determined to infringe or dilute the mark in question, any domain name registrar, registry, or other registration authority that refuses to register, removes from registration, transfers, temporarily disables, or permanently cancels a domain name: (1) in compliance with a court order; or (2) in the implementation of a reasonable policy prohibiting the registration of a domain name identical to, confusingly similar to, or dilutive of another's mark registered on the Principal Registry of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Provides that if a registration authority takes such action based on a knowing and material misrepresentation by any person that a domain name is identical to, confusingly similar to, or dilutive of a another's registered mark, such person shall be liable for damages incurred by the domain name registrant and the court may grant injunctive relief to such registrant.Shields a registrar, registry, or other registration authority from liability for damages for the registration or maintenance of a domain name for another, unless there is a showing of bad faith intent to profit from such registration or maintenance of the domain name.
People & committees
Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S9749-9755)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
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.1461 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.1461 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.1461 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.1461 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.