claims under California's anti-SLAPP (Strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute. The district court in the original case arrived at the following conclusions: Kremer's use of the Bosley name in his website is free speech, therefore Bosley is attempting to chill Kremer's free speech through lawsuits in violation of California's Anti-SLAPP law. Kremer did not profit commercially from using the Bosley name therefore his use and registration of www.BosleyMedical.com is not in violation of ACPA the anti-cybersquatting law. Kremer did not infringe or dilute the Bosley brand name trademark because his site did not seek to profit financially and did not offer any services to confuse a visitor. The district court then granted Kremer summary judgment. Bosley then appealed the case to United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Ninth Circuit appeal On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's entry of summary judgement in favor of Kremer, reversed the anti-SLAPP motion to strike the state law claims and remanded the ACPA claim for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit issued its opinion on April 4, 2005, affirming in part, reversing in part and remanding the District Court's decision. Trademark Infringement and Dilution Claims The Circuit Court ruled that "Bosley cannot use the Lanham Act either as a shield from Kremer's criticism, or as a sword to shut Kremer up." The Court recognized that the Lanham Act was to be applied in commercial contexts and does not prohibit all unauthorized uses of a trademark. They concluded that any harm that came to Bosley was from Kremer's criticism of their services rather than from a competitor's sale of a similar product under Bosley's trademark because, according to the Court, "no customer will mistakenly purchase a hair replacement service from Kremer under the belief that the service is being offered by Bosley. Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act Using the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ("ACPA") passed by Congress in 1999, the Circuit Court reversed the district courts dismissal of Bosley's ACPA claim. The district court dismissed the claim "for the same reasons that it dismissed the infringement and dilution claims - namely, because Kremer did not make commercial use of Bosley's mark." The Circuit Court found that the district court was wrong in applying the commercial use requirement to Bosley's ACPA claim. The district court should have instead focused on "whether Kremer had a bad faith intent to profit from his use of