People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Michael T. Doughney
Can a look-alike domain be “parody,” or does it confuse users and infringe a trademark?
```
Quick Summary
Michael Doughney registered peta.org and used it for “People Eating Tasty Animals.” Users looking for PETA could be misled. The Fourth Circuit said: this is trademark infringement. A parody must clearly show it is a joke and not the official site. peta.org suggested PETA’s ownership, so the parody claim failed.
Issues
- Does using “peta.org” infringe PETA’s trademark even without selling goods or services?
- Does the site qualify as a protected parody under the First Amendment?
Rules
- Trademark law asks: is there likely confusion about source, sponsorship, or affiliation?
- Parody online must signal imitation and non-affiliation at the same time—especially in the domain name.
- A domain identical to a mark can mislead users before they read any page content.
Facts (Timeline)
view1995: Doughney registers peta.org for “People Eating Tasty Animals.” Site includes links to leather/meat vendors.
1996: PETA asks for transfer of the domain (they own the PETA mark). Doughney refuses.
Lawsuit: PETA sues for infringement, dilution, unfair competition, and cybersquatting. District Court orders Doughney to stop using and to transfer the domain.
Appeal: Doughney argues parody/free speech. The Fourth Circuit affirms judgment for PETA.
Arguments
Appellant (PETA)
- “peta.org” is identical to the PETA mark and implies official ownership.
- Users are likely to be confused before reading any page content.
- Links to leather/meat sites increase harm and confusion.
Respondent (Doughney)
- Site is satire; free speech protects parody.
- A disclaimer and link to PETA reduce confusion.
- No goods/services sold; no commercial use.
Judgment
Infringement FoundThe Fourth Circuit affirmed: using peta.org caused likely confusion and infringed PETA’s mark. The parody defense failed because the domain itself did not show it was a joke or a non-PETA site. Disclaimers on the page came too late—confusion had already happened at the address bar.
- Transfer of the domain to PETA ordered; use enjoined.
- No sale required for confusion; source/affiliation confusion is enough.
Ratio Decidendi
A domain name identical to a trademark can create initial interest confusion. For parody protection, the domain/site must at once signal humor and non-affiliation. “peta.org” implied the real organization and therefore failed the parody test.
Why It Matters
- Guides brand owners and critics on domain name limits.
- Disclaimers may not cure confusion caused at the URL level.
- Parody must be obvious and non-affiliating from the first click.
Key Takeaways
- Identical domains can mislead even without sales.
- Parody needs clear signals of non-affiliation.
- Confusion can occur before content loads.
- Use modified domains (e.g., “not-peta.example”) for satire.
- Add clear page cues: titles, banners, and disclaimers.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
URL = FIRST IMPRESSION — If the URL looks official, confusion starts.
- Check: Is the domain identical/close to a mark?
- Signal: Add “satire,” “not,” or other non-affiliation terms in the domain/title.
- Confirm: Use clear, early disclaimers and distinct visuals.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Does “peta.org” infringe the PETA mark, and is it protected parody?
Rule
Likelihood of confusion; parody must show humor and non-affiliation simultaneously.
Application
“peta.org” looks official; users likely think it is PETA’s site before reading content.
Conclusion
Infringement found; parody defense rejected; domain transferred.
Glossary
| Term | Simple Meaning |
|---|---|
| Likelihood of Confusion | Chance that people think a site/product comes from the trademark owner. |
| Parody | Humorous imitation that also shows it is not the real thing. |
| Initial Interest Confusion | Early confusion that grabs attention, even if cleared up later. |
| Cybersquatting | Registering domains of others’ marks in bad faith. |
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now