1 / 10

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals V. Doughney

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals V. Doughney. By Joshua Pedigo. Background.

zonta
Download Presentation

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals V. Doughney

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. People for the Ethical Treatment of AnimalsV.Doughney By Joshua Pedigo

  2. Background • In 1995 Michael Doughney registered the domain name peta.org which stood for “People Eating Tasty Animals” as a parody and in contrast to the real organization “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.”

  3. Main Issue • service mark infringement- there is a “likelihood of confusion” between his or her trademark and the allegedly infringing mark. If the marks are exactly the same in spelling and how they are pronounced, there is a greater chance of likelihood of confusion between the marks. VS

  4. Lower Court Decision • In District Court, the court ruled in favor of PETA, leading the case to the circuit court.

  5. Judges • JUDGES: Claude M. Hilton, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

  6. Plaintiffs Argument • People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals claimed that Doughney was in violation of trademark infringement.

  7. Defendants Arguement • The defendant stated that his website was a mere parody to the original “PETA.”

  8. Circuit Court Decision • The court decided that the defendant had violated the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, but PETA was not entitled to damages or attorney fees because Doughney had registered the domain name prior to the ACPA and did not deliberately infringe the trademark. And Doughney was required to surrender the doman name.

  9. Impact • This case really defined the limits and the precautions when creating a parody. You have to make sure your parody meets all of the requirements of an actual parody before putting it out there where everyone can see it.

  10. Works Cited • http://www.backcountrydecals.com/images/petad.gif • www.bumpertalk.com • www.tbp.com • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals_v._Doughney • http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/DomainNames/PETA.htm • http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/eat_more_beef_chicken.jpg • http://frankandjan.com/WIT/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/chickfila.jpg • http://cdn1.tweegee.com/Cms/News/7/6/1767/6722_128836777132607500676_Original.jpg • http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/stjohns/PETA_v_Doughney.html • http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/matters/matters-0212.html

More Related