In the case of Hasbro, Inc. v. Internet Entertainment Group, Ltd., Hasbro, Inc., the maker of Candyland, owns the Candyland trademark.  Brian Cartmell and the Internet Entertainment Group (IEG), Lt., used “candyland.com” as a domain name for a sexually explicit internet site.  Any person who performed an online search for “candyland” was directed to this adult Web site.  Hasbro filed a trademark dilution claim in a federal court against Cartmell and IEG. The court ordered the defendants to remove all content from the candyland.com site and to stop using the Candyland mark.  Hasbro showed that the defendants’ use of the mark and the domain name candyland.com in connection with their site was causing irreparable injury to Hasbro.  Hasbro demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on its claims that defendants violated the applicable federal and state statutes against trademark dilution. If the Court had ordered both parties to change their domains, what, if any, complications would this present?

 
In the case of Hasbro, Inc. v. Internet Entertainment Group, Ltd., Hasbro, Inc., the maker of Candyland, owns the Candyland trademark.  Brian Cartmell and the Internet Entertainment Group (IEG), Lt., used “candyland.com” as a domain name for a sexually explicit internet site.  Any person who performed an online search for “candyland” was directed to this adult Web site.  Hasbro filed a trademark dilution claim in a federal court against Cartmell and IEG.
The court ordered the defendants to remove all content from the candyland.com site and to stop using the Candyland mark.  Hasbro showed that the defendants’ use of the mark and the domain name candyland.com in connection with their site was causing irreparable injury to Hasbro.  Hasbro demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on its claims that defendants violated the applicable federal and state statutes against trademark dilution.
If the Court had ordered both parties to change their domains, what, if any, complications would this present?