Print PDF

In this case defendant was not using plaintiff’s GO-PED trademark as part of the domain name for a website, but rather as part of the post-domain path identifying a particular page on defendant’s website, namely “”  The court found as a matter of law that defendant’s use of the mark in this manner was not a trademark violation because the mark was not part of the website’s domain name.  According to the court, a website’s domain name may serve as a source identifier, but the text following the domain name serves only an informational function of indicating the organization of the website’s data.  Thus, the fact that the GO-PED mark appeared in the text following the website’s domain name did not alter the court’s conclusion that defendant’s use of plaintiff’s GO-PED mark on his website to identify plaintiff’s particular brand of scooter was a fair use and not likely to cause confusion as to source or sponsorship.