## Facts

- DaimlerChrysler owned and used the federally registered DODGE trademark for decades and promoted “1-800-4-ADODGE.”
- In 1995, DaimlerChrysler registered and used the domain name 4ADODGE.com for a website.
- In 1996, while incarcerated, Keith Maydak directed Michael Sussman to register foradodge.com; Sussman registered it listing “The Net Inc.” as registrant.
- “The Net Inc.” was not a real corporate entity; it was described by Maydak and Sussman as an informal association between them.
- Maydak also registered foradodge.net and claimed he intended to use foradodge.com for “dodging” services (asset protection, tax and creditor avoidance).
- Defendants had no authorization from DaimlerChrysler and no trademark or other intellectual-property rights in “DODGE” or “foradodge.”

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was proper under the ACPA because no genuine dispute existed that defendants registered and used foradodge.com with a bad-faith intent to profit from the DODGE mark.
2. Whether the district court properly entered a permanent injunction and ordered transfer of the foradodge.com domain to DaimlerChrysler.
3. Whether the district court properly struck defendants’ third-party claim that the ACPA effects an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to DaimlerChrysler on the ACPA claim.
- The court held that the record established the required ACPA elements, including defendants’ bad-faith intent to profit, as a matter of law.
- The court affirmed the permanent injunction barring defendants from further use of the “foradodge” name.
- The court affirmed the order transferring the foradodge.com domain name to DaimlerChrysler.
- The court affirmed striking defendants’ third-party Fifth Amendment takings claim against the United States.

## Legal Principles

- ACPA liability requires proof that (1) the mark is distinctive or famous, (2) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark (or dilutive), and (3) the defendant acted with a bad-faith intent to profit from the mark.
- Bad faith under the ACPA is assessed using nonexclusive statutory factors, including lack of rights in the name, intent to divert consumers, and provision of misleading registrant information.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine dispute of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; conclusory assertions of benign intent do not defeat summary judgment without supporting evidence.
- Upon finding an ACPA violation, courts may grant injunctive relief and order cancellation or transfer of the infringing domain name.
- Enforcement of the ACPA against bad-faith domain registrations does not constitute a compensable Fifth Amendment taking of property.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that defendants’ registration of foradodge.com—closely tracking DaimlerChrysler’s DODGE mark and related “4ADODGE” branding, coupled with no legitimate rights and evasive registration details—constituted cybersquatting under the ACPA, justifying summary judgment, an injunction, and transfer of the domain, and it rejected the asserted Fifth Amendment takings challenge.


DaimlerChrysler v. The Net Inc., 388 F.3d 201 (6th Cir. 2004)