1. Was there any indication that Doughney was cybersquatting?

2. Could Doughney have avoided liability by making changes to his website or business model? What changes might have helped shield him from liability?

3. Since there is no evidence that Doughney earned any money off of his registration, should the law impose a ban on his use of the domain name? Are there any First Amendment issues involved?

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is the high-profile non-profit organization devoted to educating the public at large and attempting to prevent the abuse of animals for corporate gain. Doughney registered the domain name peta.org, claiming he was head of an organization called “People Eating Tasty Animals” and, thus, was entitled to use the name. Doughney’s website contained links to furriers and others that would be in direct conflict with PETA’s mission. PETA filed suit against Doughney, alleging, among other things, that his use of peta.org violated the ACPA. The trial court  ruled in favor of PETA, granted it summary judgment, and ordered Doughney to cease use of the peta.org domain name. Doughney appealed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision in favor of PETA. court   The court pointed out nine examples of bad-faith action taken by Doughney and held that his actions violated the ACPA. The court rejected Doughney’s claim that the website was merely a parody of the PETA organization because of the likelihood of confusion. In fact, Doughney admitted that “many people” would initially assume that they were accessing an authentic site sponsored by PETA.

“[Under the ACPA], there are nine factors a court must consider in making a determination of whether the Defendant had a bad faith intent. Applying these factors, it appears that Doughney had the requisite bad faith intent.

“First, Defendant possessed no intellectual property rights in ‘PETA.ORG’ when he registered the domain name in 1995. Second, the ‘PETA.ORG’ domain name is not the Defendant, Michael T. Doughney’s legal name or any name that is otherwise used to identify the Defendant. Third, Defendant had not engaged in prior use of the ‘PETA.ORG’ domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services prior to registering ‘PETA.ORG.’ Fourth, Defendant used the PETA mark in a commercial manner. Fifth, Defendant 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. Sixth, on Doughney’s ‘PETA.ORG’ website, Doughney made reference to seeing what PETA would offer him if PETA did not like his website. Seventh, Defendant, when registering the domain name ‘PETA.ORG,’ falsely stated that ‘People Eating Tasty Animals’ was a non-profit educational organization and that this website did not infringe any trademark. Eighth, Defendant has registered other Internet domain names which are identical or similar to either marks or names of famous people or organizations he opposes. Ninth, the PETA mark used in the ‘PETA.ORG’ domain name is distinctive and famous and was so at the time Defendant registered this site in September 1995.”