Scott Rigsby v. Godaddy Inc.
59 F.4th 998
9th Cir.2023Background:
- Scott Rigsby (and the Scott Rigsby Foundation) registered scottrigsbyfoundation.org with GoDaddy in 2007.
- In 2018 Rigsby failed to renew the domain (allegedly due to a GoDaddy billing glitch); a third party then registered the name and turned it into a gambling site.
- Rigsby sued GoDaddy (and corporate affiliates) in the N.D. Ga., asserting Lanham Act and state-law claims and seeking the domain's return; the case was transferred to D. Ariz. under GoDaddy's forum-selection clause.
- The district court dismissed all claims with prejudice; Rigsby appealed to the Ninth Circuit and challenged both the transfer and dismissal.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal in part and held it lacked jurisdiction to review the transfer order.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reviewability of transfer | Transfer improper; ask court to review transfer to D. Ariz. | Transfer order governed by transferor-circuit rule; appeals lie in transferor circuit | Ninth Circuit lacks jurisdiction to review N.D. Ga. transfer order |
| Lanham Act §1125(a) "use in commerce" | GoDaddy knowingly provided/use of domain to disseminate deceptive gambling content | GoDaddy only registered the domain; registration is not "use in commerce" by registrar | No plausible allegation GoDaddy "used" the mark in commerce; claim fails |
| ACPA/registrar liability | GoDaddy facilitated hijack and should be liable under anticybersquatting principles | ACPA shields registrars for mere registration absent bad-faith intent to profit or activity beyond registration | GoDaddy is a registrar and plaintiff did not plausibly allege bad faith or that GoDaddy went beyond registration; ACPA immunity applies |
| State-law torts & injunctions (including Arizona Consumer Fraud Act) | GoDaddy published/allowed defamatory and deceptive gambling content; injunction & state relief warranted | GoDaddy is an interactive computer service, not the content creator; §230 immunity bars state-law liability | §230 immunity applies; state-law claims and injunction requests are barred or inadequately pled |
Key Cases Cited
- Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Ent. Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999) ("use in commerce" requirement for Lanham Act claims)
- Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 1999) (registrar registration is not "use in commerce")
- Bird v. Parsons, 289 F.3d 865 (6th Cir. 2002) (registrar granting an address does not make it liable for registrant's infringement)
- Petroliam Nasional Berhad v. GoDaddy.com, Inc., 737 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2013) (limits on extending ACPA liability to registrars)
- Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (§230 publisher/speaker framework)
- Ricci v. Teamsters Union Local 456, 781 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 2015) (GoDaddy qualifies for §230 protection as an interactive computer service)
- Gonzalez v. Google LLC, 2 F.4th 871 (9th Cir. 2021) (websites lose §230 immunity only if they materially contribute to content)
- Kimzey v. Yelp! Inc., 836 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir. 2016) ("material contribution" test for information content provider)
- Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003) (distinguishing interactive computer service from information content provider)