In this case, the defendant is Bob D’Amato while the plaintiff is Audi. Bob D’Amato is not associated with Audi in any way. On February 11, 1999, the defendant registered the domain name www.audisport.com, and began posting content to the site from June 4, 1999. Two years later, an Audi dealer by the name Champion Audi saw the webpage and approached D’Amato seeking to link D’Amato’s site to an online store that would sell merchandise with the ‘Audi Sport’ logo. These items would include hats and shirts. The online store was later established and run on a different page at www.audisport.com/boutique. The store also offered personalized email addresses @audisport.com. D’Amato was to be given a percentage of profits generated through this venture. However, it was not clear whether D’Amato sold the products personally since he maintained that “his website merely had links to goods (hats and shirts) and email hosting services offered by Champion Audi” (Samson, para. 2) Again, it is not known whether the defendant received benefited financially from this undertaking. D’Amato engaged a graphic designer to make two logos integrating Audi trademarks to be used on www.audisport.com. The designer questioned whether D’Amato was allowed to use these marks and reminded him that Audi already had a website through which it sold similar products. D’Amato alleged he had been authorized by the Audi dealer to use the marks and continued to use them on his website. However, Audi’s agreement with the dealer barred him from permitting D’Amato to use any of the company’s trademarks. Apart from placing the logos on his website, D’Amato’s site also misleadingly stated, “Who are we? We are a cooperative with Audi of America and will be providing the latest products for your Audi’s and information on AudiSport North America” (Samson, para. 6). In May 2003, the Audi dealer opted to end his dealings with D’Amato since the business was not generating adequate profits. Consequently, in late 2003, and early 2004, Audi contacted D’Amato asking him to cease his activities using the website. D’Amato responded by taking down the Audi marks from his site. Besides, he added a disclaimer, renouncing any affiliations with Audi, saying “this page is not associated with Audi AG or Audi USA in any way” (Samson, para. 2). However, he still offered advertising services on his site (Berkman Center for Internet & Society, para. 6). Audi then began legal proceedings, accusing the defendant of infringing and diluting its trademarks in breach of the Lanham Act, in addition to breaching the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). The District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and commanded D’Amato to permanently cease further infringement into any of Audi’s marks. The District Court also awarded Audi’s legal fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) and instructed D’Amato to transfer www.audisport.com to the plaintiff. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the ruling. To succeed on claims of unfair use of trademarks, under the Lanham Act, the plaintiff has to prove a likelihood of confusion between the two marks in question. In the Sixth Circuit, the likelihood of confusion is determined by assessing eight topics: “(1) strength of plaintiff’s mark; (2) relatedness of the goods; (3) similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) marketing of channels used; (6) degree of purchaser care; (7) defendant’s intent in selecting the mark; and (8