under the ACPA, which amended the Lan-ham Act, is a trademark matter over which federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction. Moreover, any decision made by a panel under the UDRP is no more than an agreed-upon administration that is not given any deference under the ACPA. To the contrary, because a UDRP decision is susceptible of being grounded on principles foreign or hostile to American law, the ACPA authorizes reversing a panel decision if such a result is called for by application of the Lanham Act. In sum, we conclude that we have jurisdiction over this dispute brought under the ACPA and the Lanham Act. Moreover, we give the decision of the WIPO panelist no deference in deciding this action under § 1114(2)(D)(v). See Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.Sd 365, 373-74 (3d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Sallen v. Corinthians Licenciamentos LTDA,
holding that 15 usc  11142dv requires the federal court to approach the issues raised in an action brought under that provision de novo rather than to apply the deferential review appropriate to actions governed by the federal arbitration act holding that in actions brought under 42 usc  1983 federal courts apply the states statute of limitation for personal injury holding that the validity of releases under the federal employers liability act was a question to be determined by federal rather than state law holding the fourteenth amendment does not apply to the actions of the federal government holding that rookerfeldman precludes jurisdiction over a federal lawsuit to compel arbitration under the federal arbitration act because the action was inextricably intertwined with the plaintiffs failed statelaw action to compel arbitration under the louisiana arbitration act