A Parody of PETA People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is a nonprof

Question

A Parody of PETA People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is a nonprofit organi- zation dedicated to the promotion of animal rights. The group is opposed to eating meat, wearing fur and leather, and conducting research experi- ments on animals. In this case, the domain name www.peta.org was reg- istered 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 Anticybersquatting 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 I yers contended that there was no infringement or dilution, and hence no iolation 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."96 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 195 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 alid reason for registering a domain name incorporating that trademark owner's trademark (peta.org). Or does that domain name require some sort of appendage or distinguishing variation such as "petasucks.com" so that there will be no confusion? Questions Do you agree with the court's decision in this case? If so, what about Mr. Doughney's free speech rights? 2. In your view, why did the court reject Doughney's parody defense?

Explanation / Answer

1. i agree with the courts decision here. doughney has the right to speech but he cannot exploit someone elses property while doing it. it is illegal to have same domain names as that of other people and hence, a crime was conducted by doughney. the issue is not the website noone is stopping him to do that but the issue is he could have used some other domain name which he did not. also he himself agreed to this and weakened his case hence the decision of the court can be considered as justifiable

2. doughneys parody defense was rejected by the court as rthe proofs were against him and he himself made statements opposing his case like agreeing to the fact that people might get confused and land up onhis website instead of the original peta and saying about the compromise out of court in the media. hence he weakened his case on his own.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse A
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.