Opinion ID: 2967476
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Trademark Infringement/Unfair Competition

Text: A plaintiff alleging causes of action for trademark infringement and unfair competition must prove (1) that it possesses a mark; (2) that the defendant used the mark; (3) that the defendant's use of the mark occurred in commerce; (4) that the defendant used the mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services; and (5) that the defendant used the mark in a manner likely to confuse consumers. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125(a); Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon v. Alpha of Virginia, 43 F.3d 922, 930 (4th Cir. 1995).2 2 _________________________________________________________________ 2 See also Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, 43 F.3d at 930 n.10 ([t]he test for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act is essentially the same as that for common law unfair competition under Virginia law . . . .). 6 There is no dispute here that PETA owns the PETA Mark, that Doughney used it, and that Doughney used the Mark in commerce. Doughney disputes the district court's findings that he used the Mark in connection with goods or services and that he used it in a manner engendering a likelihood of confusion.
To use PETA's Mark in connection with goods or services, Doughney need not have actually sold or advertised goods or services on the www.peta.org website. Rather, Doughney need only have prevented users from obtaining or using PETA's goods or services, or need only have connected the website to other's goods or services. While sparse, existing caselaw on infringement and unfair competition in the Internet context clearly weighs in favor of this conclusion. For example, in OBH, Inc. v. Spotlight Magazine, Inc., the plaintiffs owned the The Buffalo News registered trademark used by the newspaper of the same name. 86 F. Supp.2d 176 (W.D. N.Y. 2000). The defendants registered the domain name thebuffalonews.com and created a website parodying The Buffalo News and providing a public forum for criticism of the newspaper. Id. at 182. The site contained hyperlinks to other local news sources and a site owned by the defendants that advertised Buffalo-area apartments for rent. Id. at 183. The court held that the defendants used the mark in connection with goods or services because the defendants' website was likely to prevent or hinder Internet users from accessing plaintiffs' services on plaintiffs' own web site. Id. Prospective users of plaintiffs' services who mistakenly access defendants' web site may fail to continue to search for plaintiffs' web site due to confusion or frustration. Such users, who are presumably looking for the news services provided by the plaintiffs on their web site, may instead opt to select one of the several other news-related hyperlinks contained in defendants' web site. These news-related hyperlinks will directly link the user to other news-related web sites that are in direct competition with plaintiffs in providing news-related services over the Internet. Thus, defen- 7 dants' action in appropriating plaintiff's mark has a connection to plaintiffs' distribution of its services. Id. Moreover, the court explained that defendants' use of the plaintiffs' mark was in connection with goods or services because it contained a link to the defendants' apartment-guide website. Id. Similarly, in Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Bucci, the plaintiff owned the Planned Parenthood mark, but the defendant registered the domain name plannedparenthood.com. 42 U.S.P.Q.2d 1430 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). Using the domain name, the defendant created a website containing information antithetical to the plaintiff's views. Id. at 1435. The court ruled that the defendant used the plaintiff's mark in connection with the distribution of services because it is likely to prevent some Internet users from reaching plaintiff's own Internet web site. Prospective users of plaintiff's services who mistakenly access defendant's web site may fail to continue to search for plaintiff's own home page, due to anger, frustration, or the belief that plaintiff's home page does not exist. Id. The same reasoning applies here. As the district court explained, Doughney's use of PETA's Mark in the domain name of his website is likely to prevent Internet users from reaching [PETA's] own Internet web site. The prospective users of [PETA's] services who mistakenly access Defendant's web site may fail to continue to search for [PETA's] own home page, due to anger, frustration, or the belief that [PETA's] home page does not exist. Doughney, 113 F. Supp.2d at 919 (quoting Bucci, 42 U.S. P.Q.2d at 1435). Moreover, Doughney's web site provides links to more than 30 commercial operations offering goods and services. By providing links to these commercial operations, Doughney's use of PETA's Mark is in connection with the sale of goods or services. 8
The unauthorized use of a trademark infringes the trademark holder's rights if it is likely to confuse an ordinary consumer as to the source or sponsorship of the goods. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. L&L Wings, Inc., 962 F.2d 316, 318 (4th Cir. 1992) (citing 2 J. McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 23:28 (2d ed. 1984)). To determine whether a likelihood of confusion exists, a court should not consider how closely a fragment of a given use duplicates the trademark, but must instead consider whether the use in its entirety creates a likelihood of confusion. Id. at 319. Doughney does not dispute that the peta.org domain name engenders a likelihood of confusion between his web site and PETA. Doughney claims, though, that the inquiry should not end with his domain name. Rather, he urges the Court to consider his website in conjunction with the domain name because, together, they purportedly parody PETA and, thus, do not cause a likelihood of confusion. A parody is defined as a simple form of entertainment conveyed by juxtaposing the irreverent representation of the trademark with the idealized image created by the mark's owner. L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc., 811 F.2d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 1987). A parody must convey two simultaneous -- and contradictory -- messages: that it is the original, but also that it is not the original and is instead a parody. Cliffs Notes, Inc. v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publ. Group, Inc., 886 F.2d 490, 494 (2d Cir. 1989) (emphasis in original). To the extent that an alleged parody conveys only the first message, it is not only a poor parody but also vulnerable under trademark law, since the customer will be confused. Id. While a parody necessarily must engender some initial confusion, an effective parody will diminish the risk of consumer confusion by conveying [only] just enough of the original design to allow the consumer to appreciate the point of parody. Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Hogg Wylde, Ltd., 828 F.2d 1482, 1486 (10th Cir. 1987). Looking at Doughney's domain name alone, there is no suggestion of a parody. The domain name peta.org simply copies PETA's Mark, conveying the message that it is related to PETA. The domain name does not convey the second, contradictory message needed to estab- 9 lish a parody -- a message that the domain name is not related to PETA, but that it is a parody of PETA. Doughney claims that this second message can be found in the content of his website. Indeed, the website's content makes it clear that it is not related to PETA. However, this second message is not conveyed simultaneously with the first message, as required to be considered a parody. The domain name conveys the first message; the second message is conveyed only when the viewer reads the content of the website. As the district court explained,an internet user would not realize that they were not on an official PETA web site until after they had used PETA's Mark to access the web page`www.peta.org.' Doughney, 113 F. Supp.2d at 921. Thus, the messages are not conveyed simultaneously and do not constitute a parody. See also Morrison & Foerster LLP v. Wick, 94 F. Supp.2d 1125 (D. Co. 2000) (defendant's use of plaintiffs' mark in domain name does not convey two simultaneous and contradictory messages because [o]nly by reading through the content of the sites could the user discover that the domain names are an attempt at parody); Bucci, 42 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1435 (rejecting parody defense because [s]eeing or typing the `planned parenthood' mark and accessing the web site are two separate and nonsimultaneous activities). The district court properly rejected Doughney's parody defense and found that Doughney's use of the peta.org domain name engenders a likelihood of confusion. Accordingly, Doughney failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding PETA's infringement and unfair competition claims.