## Facts

- William S. Purdy, Sr., an anti-abortion activist, registered multiple internet domain names incorporating famous trademarks owned by Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, PepsiCo, and the Washington Post entities.
- The registered domains included variations such as drinkcoke.org, mycoca-cola.com, mymcdonalds.com, mypepsi.org, pepsisays.com, and multiple washingtonpost-form domains.
- The domain names were confusingly similar to the trademark owners’ marks and were used to redirect users to Purdy’s anti-abortion website, which contained advocacy and graphic imagery.
- Purdy’s conduct was intended to divert internet users seeking the trademark owners’ sites by using the goodwill associated with the famous marks to draw traffic to his message.
- Purdy offered to stop using at least one Washington Post-related domain name in exchange for space on the newspaper’s editorial page.

## Issues

1. Whether Purdy’s registration and use of domain names confusingly similar to plaintiffs’ marks constituted cybersquatting under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), including whether he acted with a bad faith intent to profit.
2. Whether enjoining Purdy’s use of the trademark-based domain names violated the First Amendment because the redirected site communicated political and religious anti-abortion speech.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction ordering transfer of the domain names and in imposing contempt sanctions for violation of that injunction.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the preliminary injunction prohibiting Purdy from registering or using specified confusingly similar domain names and requiring transfer of those domain names to the trademark owners.
- The court held the trademark owners showed a likelihood of success under the ACPA, including confusing similarity and bad faith intent to profit.
- The court rejected the First Amendment defense, concluding the injunction regulated use of trademarks as source-identifying domain names rather than suppressing Purdy’s message.
- The court affirmed the contempt findings and fines, concluding Purdy violated clear and specific court orders and sanctions were within the district court’s discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Under the ACPA, liability can be established by registering or using a domain name that is confusingly similar to another’s mark with a bad faith intent to profit.
- Bad faith intent to profit may be shown where a defendant uses famous marks as “hooks” to divert users by trading on the marks’ goodwill or by seeking bargaining leverage from the mark owner.
- Political or religious motivation does not create a First Amendment entitlement to use another’s trademark as a confusing domain name; trademark regulation may permissibly restrict the manner of source designation while leaving alternative channels to convey the underlying message.
- Preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate where trademark owners show likely success on the merits and ongoing risk of harm from consumer diversion and injury to goodwill, and courts may order transfer of infringing domain names.
- Violations of clear injunctions in trademark/domain disputes may be addressed through contempt sanctions to secure compliance.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld injunctive and contempt relief under the ACPA against an activist who used famous trademarks in confusing domain names to divert web traffic to an advocacy site, holding that trademark-based domain restrictions regulate source identification and do not violate the First Amendment when speakers remain free to express their views through non-infringing domains.


Coca-Cola Co. v. Purdy, 382 F.3d 774 (8th Cir. 2004)