Research Paper on:
Trademark Infringement, Cybersquting and the 1998 Ninth Circuit Case of Panavision Intl v. Toeppen 141 F.3d 1316

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
is neither tangible nor taxable at the present time: Cyberspace. In a landmark courtcase, Panavision International sued Dennis Toppen for cybersquatting. The plaintiff (Panavision) brought an action under the Federal  Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA). This paper will be an explanation of the principle components of the case and the corollaries which were drawn as a result. STATEMENT OF FACT PANAVISION  VS TOPPEN A domain name is quite simply the cyber street address for an individual computer which is connected to the internet. Generally speaking, the domain name is  one which is easier for human beings to negotiate, rather than remembering all of the HTML codes, one only has to remember, for example. www.gohome.com . Of course, there is  always an angle to be found, and Dennis Toppen found it. And, it goes without saying that if user friendly domain names were not allowed that this legal chaos would  never have ensued. Many of the perpetrators of these crimes manage to incorporate the purloined trademarks in one of several ways. A  more straight forward approach is to utilize the name verbatim from the companys logo. A person who is not the owner of this trademarked name and registers the trademark as  their own domain name is in direct violation of trademark infringement and there is little leeway. However, in the case of Panavision versus Toppen, Dennis Toppen used the domain name,  Panavision, with a slight variation from the companys true domain name. For example, Panavision.com versus Panavision.org. which takes advantage of misspelling or lack of memory on the users part.  It would seem that a good deal of these cases were beginning to make their way into the court rooms and as a