## Facts

- Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) owned the trademark “PETRONAS.”
- A third-party registrant registered the domain names “petronastower.net” and “petronastowers.net” in 2003 through a registrar other than GoDaddy.
- In 2007, the registrant transferred its registration services to GoDaddy.
- The registrant used GoDaddy’s domain-name forwarding service so the disputed domain names routed users to an adult website hosted by a third party.
- In 2009, Petronas and government officials contacted GoDaddy and requested action regarding the disputed domain names.
- GoDaddy investigated but did not disable the domain names, citing that it did not host the content and that the UDRP limited its role in ownership disputes.
- Petronas sued GoDaddy in federal district court alleging contributory cybersquatting under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d).
- The district court granted summary judgment for GoDaddy, concluding the ACPA does not provide a contributory cybersquatting cause of action.

## Issues

1. Whether the ACPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), creates or permits a cause of action for contributory cybersquatting against a registrar or service provider for a registrant’s alleged cybersquatting.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for GoDaddy.
- The court held the ACPA does not provide a cause of action for contributory cybersquatting.
- The court relied on the statute’s text limiting liability to a person who, with bad-faith intent, “registers, traffics in, or uses” a domain name.
- The court declined to import common-law contributory trademark infringement doctrines into the ACPA because Congress created a distinct statutory cause of action with its own limits and safe-harbor structure.
- The court reasoned that extending secondary liability to registrars would expand the statute beyond its design and impose burdens inconsistent with the ACPA’s targeted approach.

## Legal Principles

- ACPA liability is tied to statutorily specified conduct: “register[ing], traffic[king] in, or us[ing]” a domain name with bad-faith intent to profit.
- Courts will not add an implied secondary-liability theory to a statutory scheme when the statute’s text and structure do not support it.
- When Congress creates a distinct statutory remedy with defined limits and safe harbors, those features weigh against judicial recognition of additional, uncodified liability theories.
- Intermediary services (such as registration and domain forwarding) do not create ACPA liability absent conduct fitting the statute’s direct-actor elements.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the ACPA does not authorize contributory cybersquatting claims, so a registrar providing domain registration and forwarding services could not be held secondarily liable under § 1125(d) for a third party’s alleged cybersquatting.


Petroliam Nasional Berhad v. GoDaddy.com, Inc., 737 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2013)