Description
People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the promotion of
animal rights. The group is opposed to eating meat, wearing fur and
leather, and conducting research experiments on animals. In this case,
the domain name www.peta.org
was registered by Mr. Doughney to parody PETA and its views on animals.
The webpage was entitled “People Eating Tasty Animals,” and it included
links to sites where leather goods or meat products were sold. The
plaintiff filed suit under the auspices of the Anticyber squatting
Protection Act (ACPA), alleging that the peta.org domain name was
identical to or confusingly similar to the distinctive and famous PETA
mark. Doughney and his lawyers contended that there was no infringement
or dilution, and hence no violation of the ACPA, because his website was
a parody.A federal district court ruled in
favor of PETA, finding Doughney liable for trademark infringement. The
case was promptly appealed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. It agreed that the
PETA mark was distinctive and that Doughney had no intellectual
property right in peta.org. Moreover, according to the court, there was
no record of any prior use of peta.org, and Doughney used the mark in a
commercial manner. It also agreed that Doughney “clearly intended to
confuse, mislead and divert internet users into accessing his website
which contained information antithetical and therefore harmful to the
goodwill represented by the PETA Mark.” Doughney himself “admitted that
it was ‘possible’ that some Internet users would be confused when they
activated ‘peta.org’ and found the ‘People Eating Tasty Animals’
website.” The appeals court concluded that Doughney acted in bad faith;
he made statements to the press that PETA should attempt to settle with
him and “make him an offer.”A key issue triggered by this
case is whether a good faith intention to criticize and parody a
trademark owner such as PETA should constitute a valid reason for
registering a domain name incorporating that trademark owner’s trademark
(peta.org).Question:Does that domain name
require some sort of appendage or distinguishing variation such as
“petasucks.com” so that there will be no confusion? Why? Do you agree
with the federal court decision? Why? Why not?
