D'Amato registered the domain name www.audisport.com. He sold goods and services with Audi logos. His site used various Audi trademarks. He claimed to have permission from a salesman at an Audi dealership to use the marks. Even if he did, Audi dealerships have no right, by contract, to grant any use of Audi trademarks.
Audi's Web site sells assorted goods with the Audi name and logo on it. Audi sued D'Amato for infringement, dilution, and cybersquatting of its famous trademarks: Audi, Quattro, and the Audi four-ring logo. The district court held for Audi and issued a permanent injunction against D'Amato, his Web site, and domain name. He appealed.

1. The court affirmed that D'Amato engaged in infringement, dilution, and cybersquatting with respect to Audi's marks. Since his website stated that he was not affiliated with Audi, why did that not protect him? How could Audi be harmed?
2. Why does the law focus on marks that are distinctive and famous?