Reference no: EM133802213
Problem
Case Study: A Parody of PETA
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." Get the instant assignment help.
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).
Task
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?