Perhaps you should, like, exit immediately" and provided a link to the official People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) website,[2] which due to Doughney's action had to use a less intuitive domain name.

The circuit court concluded that because the website may have confused users who wanted to buy items from the true PETA organization, it was "connected" to commerce even though Doughney did not sell any goods or services.

Thus, while the court alluded to Doughney's First Amendment right to create a parody, it ruled that doing so in the form of a website with a domain name that infringed on the target's trademark was not allowable due to the possible confusion for viewers of the site over its ownership.

"[6] PETA also alleged that Doughney's use of its trademarked acronym in the domain name for his website, before they had the chance to do the same, was a violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA).

However, the court also held that PETA was not entitled to monetary damages because Doughney registered and used the domain name prior to the ACPA's enactment.

The court ruled that PETA was ineligible for an award of attorney's fees because Doughney did not maliciously infringe the trademark, believing at the time that he could create a parody website that would be protected by the First Amendment.