PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.By Senator Leahy from Committee on the Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 111-373.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Nov 18, 2010
Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act - (Sec. 2) Amends the federal criminal code to authorize the Attorney General (AG) to commence an in rem action against a domain name used by an Internet site that is "dedicated to infringing activities," even where such a domain name is not located in the United States. Defines an Internet site that is "dedicated to infringing activities" as a site that is: (1) subject to civil forfeiture; (2) designed primarily to offer goods or services in violation of federal copyright law; or (3) selling or promoting counterfeit goods or services.
Authorizes a court, upon application of the AG, to issue a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or injunction against the domain name or names used by such a site.
Directs any actions against domestic domains to be in the judicial district where the domain name registrar or registry is located or, if such a domain is located or doing business in more than one judicial district, in the judicial district of its principal place of business. Allows any actions against nondomestic domains to be brought in the District of Columbia if: (1) such a domain is used within the United States to access an infringing site; (2) the site directs business to U.S. residents; and (3) the site harms U.S. intellectual property rights holders.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires a court determining whether a site directs business to U.S. residents to consider factors including: (1) whether goods or services are being provided to U.S. users; (2) intent; (3) prevention measures; and (4) whether any prices for such goods and services are indicated in U.S. currency.
Requires an Internet service provider, financial transaction provider, or Internet advertising service that is served with a court order in connection with an action against a nondomestic domain to take technically feasible or other specified reasonable measures to prevent such infringing activities from continuing. Grants immunity to: (1) served parties acting pursuant to a court order; and (2) certain registries, providers, and services voluntarily performing actions described in this Act.
Allows the AG to bring an action for injunctive relief against any served party that knowingly and willfully fails to comply with such court order.
Directs the AG to inform the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) and other law enforcement agencies of court orders directed to specific domain names associated with infringing sites. Requires the IPEC and authorizes certain other entities to post such domain names on a publicly available site. (Sec. 3) Requires the AG to: (1) publish procedures developed with relevant law enforcement agencies to receive information from the public about infringing activities; (2) provide specified guidance to intellectual property rights holders regarding investigations; and (3) establish standards, provide resources, and develop a deconfliction process with other law enforcement agencies for case management and enforcement coordination purposes.
(Sec. 4) Directs the Secretary of Commerce to study and report to Congress on the impact of this Act on the use of Domain Name System Security Extensions.
People & committees
Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT] · D–VT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
By Senator Leahy from Committee on the Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 111-373.
By Senator Leahy from Committee on the Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 111-373.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 648.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S7208-7209)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S7207-7208)
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.3804 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.3804 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.3804 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.3804 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.