Original sentence: Doughney, 2001) is now considered an important case for understanding the legal definition of cybersquatting.While the name is not used by any formal organization, it has been used to taunt those associated with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
Edited sentence: Doughney would have been different.Doughney, 2001) is now considered a mildly important case for understanding the legal definition of cybersquatting.Doughney, predictably, lost the case, since the website in question did not constitute a parody of the PeTA website, as he had claimed.Had the website operated as a parody, the outcome of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v.While the name is not used by any formal organization, it has been used to mock protesters from PETA