PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL T. DOUGHNEY, an individual, Defendant-Appellant. DIANE CABELL; MILTON MUELLER, Amici Curiae. PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICHAEL T. DOUGHNEY, an individual, Defendant-Appellee., 263 F.3d 359

Summary

Plaintiff, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), sued defendant after he registered the domain name peta.org and created a website called "People Eating Tasty Animals." The district court granted PETA's motion for summary judgment, but denied its motion for attorney's fees and costs. Defendant disputed 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. The court of appeals agreed with the district court that defendant's use of PETA's Mark in the domain name of his website was likely to prevent Internet users from reaching PETA's own Internet web site. Thus, the messages were not conveyed simultaneously and did not constitute a parody. However, PETA was not entitled to attorney fees and costs where PETA failed to establish that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to award "the cost of the action" under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1117.