Intellectual Property News and Reports

The panel (1) affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an action brought under the Lanham Act by Scott Rigsby and the Scott Rigsby Foundation against GoDaddy Inc. et al., seeking declaratory and injunctive relief including return of the domain name “scottrigsbyfoundation.org;” and (2) dismissed Rigsby’s and the Foundation’s appeal of an order transferring venue.

When Rigsby and the Foundation failed to pay GoDaddy, a domain name registrar, the renewal fee for scottrigsbyfoundation.org, a third party registered the then available domain name and used it for a gambling information site.

The panel held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia’s order transferring the case to the District of Arizona because transfer orders are reviewable only in the circuit of the transferor district court.

The panel held that Rigsby could not satisfy the “use in commerce” requirement of the Lanham Act vis-à-vis GoDaddy because the “use” in question was being carried out by a third-party gambling site, not GoDaddy, and Rigsby therefore did not state a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). As to the Lanham Act claim, the panel further held that Rigsby could not overcome GoDaddy’s immunity under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which limits the secondary liability of domain name registrars and registries for the act of registering a domain name. The panel concluded that Rigsby did not plausibly allege that GoDaddy registered, used, or trafficked in his domain name with a bad faith intent to profit, nor did he plausibly allege that GoDaddy’s alleged wrongful conduct surpassed mere registration activity.

The panel held that § 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which immunizes providers of interactive computer services against liability arising from content created by third parties, shielded GoDaddy from liability for Rigsby’s state-law claims for invasion of privacy, publicity, trade libel, libel, and violations of Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act. The panel held that immunity under § 230 applies when the provider is an interactive computer services, the plaintiff is treating the entity as the publisher or speaker, and the information is provided by another information content provider. Agreeing with other circuits, the panel held that domain name registrars and website hosting companies like GoDaddy fall under the definition of an interactive computer service. In addition, GoDaddy was not a publisher of scottrigsbyfoundation.org, and it was not acting as an information content provider.

Finally, the panel held that Rigsby did not state a claim for injunctive relief or declaratory relief.

Download SCOTT RIGSBY ET AL V. GODADDY INC. ET AL