Opinion ID: 614071
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Additional Domains

Text: We turn now to the Additional Domains. Unlike gopets.com, these domain names were registered at a time when the GoPets mark was distinctive. The question is whether they were registered in bad faith under § 1125(d)(1). The district court found that the Hises' registration of the Additional Domains was in bad faith. The district court based its finding in part on the fact that the Hises had used the Additional Domains as leverage to increase the price they could obtain for gopets.com, a domain name whose re-registration, in the view of the district court, violated ACPA. As just discussed, the re-registration of gopets.com did not violate ACPA. However, we can affirm the district court on any ground supported by the record. Sec. Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Meyling, 146 F.3d 1184, 1190 (9th Cir. 1998). There is ample evidence in the record on which to base a finding of bad faith, even though the re-registration of gopets.com did not violate ACPA. In determining whether a defendant has acted in bad faith within the meaning of § 1125(d)(1)(A), a court may consider, but is not limited to, nine factors. The two relevant factors here are: (V) the person's intent to divert consumers from the mark owner's online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark . . . for commercial gain . . . by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site; . . . (VIII) the person's registration . . . of multiple domain names which the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names[.] 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(B)(i). We take these two factors in reverse order. First, it is undisputed that the service mark GoPets was distinctive at the time of registration of [the additional] domain names. The Additional Domains are gopet.mobi, gopets.mobi, gopets.name, gopetssite.com, goingpets.com, gopet.biz, gopet.org, egopets.com, gopetz.bz, gopets.ws, gopet.tv, gopet.ws, gopet.bz, gopet.de, gopet.eu, gopet.name, mygopets.com and igopets.com. The Hises argue that these multiple domain names are not confusingly similar to GoPets. The Hises' argument is implausible on its face. The only relevant evidence the Hises sought to introduce in the district court were identical paragraphs in declarations of Edward and Joseph Hise that stated, without elaboration or support, There are factual issues with respect to the question of whether the . . . domain names listed by plaintiff . . . are confusingly similar to the term gopets. Some of the domain names are definitely not confusingly similar. The district court sustained GoPet Ltd.'s objections to these paragraphs and refused to admit them into evidence. The Hises have not appealed that ruling. Second, it is clear that the Hises intended the Additional Domains to divert consumers from the mark owner's online location to a site accessible under [these] domain name[s] . . . by creating a likelihood of confusion. The district court found that the Hises registered the Additional Domains for commercial gainthat is, that they registered the Additional Domains in order to increase the selling price of gopets.com. The district court believed, incorrectly, that the registration of gopets.com was itself in violation of ACPA. But the legality or illegality of the registration of gopets.com is irrelevant. The question is whether the registration of the Additional Domains was intended to achieve commercial gain by confusing consumers and diverting them from the website they intended to access. It clearly was so intended. ACPA contains a safe harbor defense for registrants who believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that the use of the domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(B)(ii). We have cautioned that the safe harbor defense should be invoked very sparingly and only in the most unusual cases. Lahoti v. VeriCheck, Inc., 586 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). A defendant who acts even partially in bad faith cannot successfully assert a safe harbor defense. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The Hises do not qualify for the safe harbor in their registration of the Additional Domains. The Hises argue that their victory in the WIPO arbitration led them to believe that their registration of the domain name gopets.com was proper. But the WIPO decision gave the Hises no reason to believe they had the right to register additional domain names that were identical or confusingly similar to GoPets. The WIPO arbitrator made clear that the Hises prevailed only because the service mark GoPets had not been registered when Edward Hise registered the domain name gopets.com. The Additional Domains were registered well after GoPets was registered as a service mark. The Hises argue on appeal that GoPets Ltd. acted with unclean hands, and that this should defeat GoPets Ltd.'s claim that the Hises acted in bad faith. The Hises waived that argument by failing to present it to the district court in a timely fashion. See Walsh v. Nev. Dep't of Human Res., 471 F.3d 1033, 1037 (9th Cir.2006). We therefore affirm the district court's holding that the Hises violated ACPA in registering the Additional Domains.