It should be noted that the court did not render a final determination on this question. Plaintiff claimed that defendant had created the web sites at issue as leverage to obtain the money defendant believed was still due on his insurance claim. At best, an issue of fact exists here to be determined at a later stage of this litigation. The court also found that plaintiff was not likely to prevail on its trademark dilution claim. To prevail on such a claim, the plaintiff must show that defendant used plaintiff's mark in commerce.
Noncommercial use is excepted under the statute.
Lastly, the court held that plaintiff had not shown that it was likely to prevail on its ACPA claim, because it had not shown that defendant used, registered or trafficked in a domain name containing plaintiff's mark with a bad faith intent to profit from the sale of the domain name. Defendant has never expressly offered to sell the domain site to plaintiff and has never used the web site for anything other than commentary. All rights Reserved.