In 2010, steve and pierce thumb and their father, fred, created arachnid webs, ltd., a partnership, to, according to steve, "develop internet address names." arachnid webs registered nearly two thousand internet domain names at an average cost of $70 each, including the names of cities, the names of buildings, names related to a business or trade (such as air conditioning or plumbing), and the names of famous companies. it offered many of the names for sale on its web site and through ebay. arachnid webs registered the domain name "barefootcellars. com" in arachnid webs’ name. barefoot cellars winery filed a suit against arachnid webs, alleging, in part, violations of the anticybersquatting consumer protection act (acpa). barefoot asked the court for, among other things, statutory damages. barefoot also sought to have the domain name at issue transferred to barefoot. during the suit, arachnid webs published anticorporate articles and negative opinions about barefoot, as well as discussions of the suit and of the risks associated with alcohol use, at the url barefootcellars. com. should the court rule in barefoot’s favor? why or why not?