On November 29, 1999, the Trademark Act was amended to include an "anticybersquatting" provision, thereby reigning in domain name speculators ("cybersquatters") who register a third party's well-known trademark or personal name for commercial gain.

The amendments, some of which are retroactive, make unlawful the registration or use of a domain name wherein the registrant intends to profit from a third party's mark or name. In particular, such amendments prohibit the registration or use of a domain name that (1) is identical or confusingly similar to a mark or name that was distinctive when the domain name was registered, (2) is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of a mark or name that was famous when the domain name was registered, or (3) consists of a mark such as RED CROSS or OLYMPIC. The criteria in assessing whether there has been "bad faith intent" include whether the registrant (1) has intellectual property rights in the domain name, (2) has used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, (3) has offered to sell the domain name registration for financial gain without having used the domain name in a bona fide offering of goods or services, (4) has made false or misleading information in registering the domain name, or (5) has warehoused many famous marks.

The remedies available include possible recovery of statutory damages from $1,000 to $100,000 and an award of attorney's fees to the prevailing party. Significantly, the amendments provide, under certain circumstances, for in rem jurisdiction in the United States judicial district of the Registry through which the domain name has been registered. Thus, a cybersquatter may no longer insulate itself from suit in the United States even as it seeks to profit from the trademark owner's goodwill existing in the United States.