People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals v. Doughney case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
263 F.3d 359
CASE SYNOPSIS: Defendant appealed from
an order of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and
plaintiff cross-appealed the denial of its motion for attorney's fees
and costs related to its claims of service mark infringement, 15
U.S.C.S. § 1114, unfair competition, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1125(a), and
service mark dilution and cybersquatting under 15 U.S.C.S. §
1123(c), and Virginia common law.
FACTS: Plaintiff, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), sued defendant after he registered the domain name peta.org and created a website called "People Eating Tasty Animals." The district court granted PETA's motion for summary judgment, but denied its motion for attorney's fees and costs. Defendant disputed the district court's findings that he used the Mark in connection with goods or services and that he used it in a manner engendering a likelihood of confusion.
FACTS: Plaintiff, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), sued defendant after he registered the domain name peta.org and created a website called "People Eating Tasty Animals." The district court granted PETA's motion for summary judgment, but denied its motion for attorney's fees and costs. Defendant disputed the district court's findings that he used the Mark in connection with goods or services and that he used it in a manner engendering a likelihood of confusion.
ANALYSIS:
The court of appeals agreed with the
district court that defendant's use of PETA's Mark in the domain name
of his website was likely to prevent Internet users from reaching
PETA's own Internet web site. Thus, the messages were not conveyed
simultaneously and did not constitute a parody. However, PETA was not
entitled to attorney fees and costs where PETA failed to establish
that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to award
"the cost of the action" under 15 U.S.C.S. §
1117.
CONCLUSION: The district court's order denying plaintiff's motion for attorney fees and costs but granting it's motion for summary judgment on trademark infringement claims was affirmed where defendant's use of plaintiff's Mark in the domain name of his website was likely to prevent Internet users from reaching the plaintiff's own Internet site.
CONCLUSION: The district court's order denying plaintiff's motion for attorney fees and costs but granting it's motion for summary judgment on trademark infringement claims was affirmed where defendant's use of plaintiff's Mark in the domain name of his website was likely to prevent Internet users from reaching the plaintiff's own Internet site.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment