I value my edumacation

You would think that four years of undergrad and three years of slaving away at law school would be enough to develop a marketable skill set, right? On the contrary, I am informed that the costly, three year education that I endured merely lifted me to a jumping off point. To maintain my certification as an attorney, I have officially been sucked into the world of "Continuing Legal Education" (or "CLE", for those in the know).

I attended a CLE luncheon today on cyberlaw, aka "intellectual property in an online environment". After being entertained by new terms such as typosquatting, cybergripping, and cybersquatting, the speaker presented a case that served as a turning point in the world of cyberlaw.

Peta ["Peta I"], or the "people for the ethical treatment of animals" is a well-known animal protectionist group with over 1.8 million members. As stated by their website, "PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in laboratories, in the clothing trade, and in the entertainment industry. We also work on a variety of other issues, including the cruel killing of beavers, birds and other "pests," and the abuse of backyard dogs." Peta I proudly pictures Pamela Anderson on its homepage--how could it not be a legitimate organization?

During the course of the valiant quest to conquer those four areas, however, Peta I failed to register the domain name "peta.org". Michael Doughney, sensing a window of opportunity, created a website hosted at peta.org called "People Eating Tasty Animals" ["Peta II"]. Apparently, Peta II endorsed views contrary to the vegetarian, pro-animal and anti-hunting viewpoints of PETA I. Doughney defended himself by explaining that his organization and website should be considered a parody under the First Amendment.

Unfortunately, the judge found that Doughney's use of the Peta mark was commercial, as it prevented visitors from reaching Peta I's website. And, as an unnecessary slap in the face, the court stated clearly that Peta II was not a parody.

I am neither a tree hugger nor a hunter. However, c'mon now--who could say (with a straight face) that Peta II doesn't qualify as a parody?