 In contrast to the Court of Appeals' 2001 opinion in "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney", where the Court affirmed the District Court's judgment against the defendant, this case supported the defendant, ruling against one gripe site and for the other.In "PETA", the parody website's content was not conveyed simultaneously with the message that the site was peta.org.In short, the Fourth Circuit backtracked on its decision in "PETA", justifying the different opinions as a distinction between parody and consumer confusion.