Dluhos v. Strasberg

Citation: Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365, 65 U.S.P.Q.2d 1842 (3d Cir. 2003).[www.ca3.uscourts.gov/recentop/week/013713.pdf]

Factual Background
Anna Strasberg &mdash; the widow of famed acting coach Lee Strasberg &mdash; has become locked in protracted litigation with a fellow named Eric Dluhos over which

of them should be able to use the "LeeStrasberg.com" domain name. Strasberg is the executrix of her late husband's estate and manages the estate's trademarks, including "The Lee Strasberg Institute" and "Actor by Lee Strasberg." Dluhos, however, registered the "LeeStrasberg.com" domain name before Strasberg did.

In response, Strasberg's representatives sent Dluhos letters asserting that his use of the domain infringed the estate's trademarks. When Dluhos failed to respond, Strasberg initiated a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Proceeding. In due course, Strasberg prevailed. Dluhos refused to participate in the proceeding, and a UDRP panel transferred the domain name to her.

Trial Court Decision
Dluhos filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the dispute resolution process. At first, he lost. A federal District Court dismissed Dluhos' constitutional claims and affirmed the UDRP panel's decision.

Appellate Court Decision
On appeal, though, Dluhos has salvaged some of his case, though it is not yet apparent whether he or Strasberg ultimately will prevail. In affirming the UDRP panel's decision in favor of Strasberg, the District Court determined that the proceeding was an "arbitration," and as such, its outcome was entitled to the Federal Arbitration Act's "extremely deferential standard of judicial review." In an opinion by Judge Ruggero Aldisert, the Court of Appeals has held that UDRP hearings are not arbitrations, and thus not covered by the Federal Arbitration Act at all.

Instead, Judge Aldisert held that Dluhos' claims were covered by the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act[[. Under that Act, Dluhos is entitled to have the District Court consider anew his right to use "LeeStrasberg.com," just as though no [[UDRP hearing had been held. As a result, Judge Aldisert reversed the dismissal of part of Dluhos' case and directed the District Court to do just that. Judge Aldisert noted, however, that his decision "in no way reflects an intimation that the [UDRP] panel erred in its judgment, but merely that UDRP resolutions do not fall under the limited judicial review of arbitrators of the [Federal Arbitration Act]."

Judge Aldisert reversed only part of the District Court's decision, because he affirmed its dismissal of Dluhos' constitutional claims against Strasberg.