Bad faith does not need to be alleged or proved in an in rem ACPA case under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2) in the Fourth Circuit. See Jack in the Box, Inc. v. Jackinthebox.org, 143 F. Supp. 2d 590, 592 (E.D. Va. 2001). Jack in the Box was the first in its jurisdiction to construe whether the ACPA statutory language required a “bad faith” analysis under section 1125(d)(2), the in rem prong. On the bad faith issue the court held:
[t]here is no need for the Court to address the ‘bad faith’ factors in the in personam provision of the statute because this action is one in rem . . . . The plain terms of the statute clearly state that the ‘bad faith’ analysis applies only to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1), the in personam prong, not 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2), the in rem prong.”
Full Article: http://tcattorney.typepad.com/antic...have-to-prove-bad-faith-intent-to-profit.htmlId. Six months after Jack in the Box, another judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held just the opposite—that because “bad faith is an element of an in personam cybersquatting action, so too should it be an element of an in rem cybersquatting action.”
