Plasmodium vivax the first-line treatment for "P. falciparum" malaria, it may also be used for P. vivax malaria in combination with primaquine for radical cure. An exception is artesunate plus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (AS+SP), which is not effective against P. vivax in many places. Mefloquine is a good alternative and in some countries is more readily available. Atovaquone-proguanil is an effective alternative in patients unable to tolerate chloroquine. Quinine may be used to treat "vivax" malaria but is associated with inferior outcomes. 32–100% of patients will relapse following successful treatment of "P. vivax" infection if a radical cure (eradication of liver stages) is not
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney court ruled that Doughney violated the ACPA. However, the court further held that PETA was not entitled to damages because Doughney registered and used the domain prior to ACPA's enactment. Instead Doughney was merely required to surrender the domain. The court ruled that PETA was ineligible for an award of attorney's fees because Doughney did not maliciously infringe the trademark because he was creating a parody and had a First Amendment right to do so. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001), was