## Facts

- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) owned a registered service mark for “PETA.”
- In 1995, Michael Doughney registered the domain name **peta.org**, representing to the registrar that the registration would not infringe third-party rights.
- Doughney used peta.org for a website titled “People Eating Tasty Animals,” which contained links to sites supporting meat, hunting, and leather goods and included a link to PETA’s official site.
- PETA demanded transfer of the domain name; Doughney refused.
- After the registrar placed the domain on hold, Doughney suggested resolving the dispute by PETA paying him “six figures” and making a donation to an animal-friendly charity.
- PETA sued for service mark infringement, unfair competition, dilution, and cybersquatting under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA).
- Doughney asserted that the site was a protected parody and that he was shielded by the ACPA safe harbor.

## Issues

1. Whether Doughney’s use of **peta.org** created a likelihood of confusion supporting service mark infringement and unfair competition.
2. Whether the “People Eating Tasty Animals” website and domain name constituted a protected parody negating confusion.
3. Whether Doughney violated the ACPA by registering and using peta.org with a bad-faith intent to profit from a domain identical or confusingly similar to PETA’s mark.
4. Whether the ACPA could be applied to a domain registered before the ACPA’s enactment and whether Doughney qualified for the ACPA safe harbor.
5. Whether PETA was entitled to attorney’s fees under the Lanham Act as an “exceptional case.”

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for PETA on service mark infringement and unfair competition.
- The court held that **peta.org** was identical to PETA’s mark and likely to confuse users as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation, including through initial interest confusion.
- The court rejected the parody defense because the domain name itself did not simultaneously signal “PETA” and “not PETA”; it simply copied the mark.
- The court affirmed liability under the ACPA, finding the domain identical or confusingly similar to PETA’s distinctive mark and finding bad-faith intent to profit, supported in part by Doughney’s statements and registration conduct.
- The court held the ACPA applied to pre-enactment registrations as specified by the statute and affirmed denial of the ACPA safe harbor.
- The court affirmed the order requiring transfer of **peta.org** to PETA and affirmed the denial of attorney’s fees.

## Legal Principles

- Domain names can function as source identifiers and may be protected under trademark law when used in a manner likely to cause confusion.
- Likelihood of confusion may be found where a domain name identical to a mark diverts users through initial interest confusion, even if the website content later reveals an opposing message.
- A parody defense in trademark disputes requires a communication that it is the original while simultaneously communicating it is not; copying a mark in a domain name generally fails this requirement when the domain itself suggests affiliation.
- Under the ACPA, liability requires (1) a bad-faith intent to profit and (2) a domain name identical or confusingly similar to a distinctive mark (or dilutive of a famous mark).
- The ACPA may apply to domain names registered before its enactment when the statute expressly provides such coverage; the safe harbor does not protect conduct lacking reasonable grounds to believe the use is lawful.
- Attorney’s fees under the Lanham Act require an “exceptional case” determination, reviewed for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that registering and using **peta.org** for a site opposing PETA infringed PETA’s service mark and constituted ACPA cybersquatting because the domain was identical to the mark, created likely confusion at the point of access, and was used with bad-faith intent to obtain value from the mark; the court also upheld transfer of the domain and denial of attorney’s fees.


People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001)