DECISION

 

MOVI, LLC v. Domain Administrator

Claim Number: FA2507002164205

 

PARTIES

Complainant is MOVI, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Lyndon Cook, JR, Utah, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator ("Respondent"), represented by Jason Schaffer of ESQwire.com, P.C., New Jersey, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DOMAIN NAMENAME 

The domain name at issue is <movi.com>, registered with GoDaddy Online Services Cayman Islands Ltd.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certify that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelists in this proceeding.

 

Steven M. Levy and Sandra J. Franklin as Panelists and Alan L. Limbury as Chair.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 4, 2025. Forum received payment on July 4, 2025.

 

On July 7, 2025, GoDaddy Online Services Cayman Islands Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <movi.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy Online Services Cayman Islands Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy Online Services Cayman Islands Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy Online Services Cayman Islands Ltd. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On July 9, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 4, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@movi.com. Also on July 9, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on August 4, 2025.

 

On August 12, 2025, pursuant to Respondent's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy and Sandra J. Franklin as Panelists and Alan L. Limbury as Chair.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, MOVI, LLC, owns two USPTO registered trademarks consisting of the characters "MOVI" in relation to clothing, namely, hats, socks, and shirts. Since the <movi.com> domain name contains those exact characters, there exists an extremely high likelihood that the marketplace will incorrectly and erroneously confuse Respondent and its use (or non-use) of <movi.com> with Complainant's registered trademarks and with Complainant's ongoing business dealings. The ensuing confusion is causing irreparable harm to Complainant's brand, business, and the way it is being perceived in the market.

 

Respondent should have no rights to the domain name considering that it has no relevant trademarks related to the domain name and due to the fact that throughout the past ten years or more, it has shown no plans to use it in the marketplace. It has been parked and idle for as long as Complainant has been monitoring it and likely so since the day it was registered. Possibly a more appropriate question here would be: Why does Respondent have any legitimate interest or rights to the domain name to begin with?

 

The domain name was registered and obtained in bad faith because Respondent clearly did not register it for any other purpose than to try and extort money out of those that may have claim to it. Complainant has attempted multiple times to negotiate with Respondent via their 3rd party agent (GoDaddy) to acquire the domain name. Each and every time Complainant has been immediately presented with a purchase price of no less than $350,000 USD that is non-negotiable. As nothing other than a parked page letting you know that this domain name is for sale has been displayed at <movi.com>, it is abundantly clear that Respondent had no other purpose in acquiring the domain name than to try and sell it for top dollar to those who have claim to it.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent PTB Media, Ltd. is the registrant and owner of the <movi.com> domain name. While the DomainTools Report and WhoIs record identifies "Domain Administrator" as the registrant, the listed address of record and the email are for PTB Media, Ltd.

 

On or around July 3, 2003, Respondent's owner purchased the domain name from its prior owner as part of an acquisition to add to its investment portfolio. Respondent's owner was then the director and owner of Domain Deluxe, which made the original domain name purchase, and a partner and shareholder of Portmedia, Ltd, the registrant and predecessor to PTB Media Ltd. In 2018 the assets of Portmedia were acquired by PTB Media, Ltd. The principal director of both companies remained the same. As part of Respondent's domain investment strategy, Respondent occasionally purchased or acquired through auction generic domain names that were deemed to be good investments.

 

Respondent decided to purchase <movi.com> because of its obvious connotation as a creative spelling for the English word "movie," which has obvious broad value and public appeal. Additionally, the four-letter short consonant, vowel, consonant, vowel ("CVCV") construct for a domain name is also broadly popular and may be used for any number of potential uses or businesses. Respondent was not aware of Complainant or its newly acquired trademark at the time of registration nor any time since 2003.

 

From 1999 to 2006, as is typical of commercially valuable domain names in which Respondent invests, Respondent purchased many other CVCV domain names. Respondent either develops the domain names or resells them to other entities looking for easy-to-remember domain names for Internet addresses for their websites. Respondent has also hosted many of its underdeveloped domain names with domain name parking services that pay a share of the advertising revenue they generate, an industry-wide accepted practice. 

 

Since 2003 Respondent has used the <movi.com> domain name to display parked pay-per-click ("PPC") advertising links related to movies and film. Such use demonstrates that it is unrelated to Complainant and not improper. The PPC links are not selected by the Respondent and are auto-generated by the parking service's advertising partner and are constantly changing based on their keyword advertising inventory, user search behavior (similar to what one would find in a search engine result) and the Google algorithm.

 

Respondent owns tens of thousands of domain names of which such advertising partner's auto-generated links appear on any given domain at any time. Respondent did not purchase and register the <movi.com> domain name with Complainant's purported trademark in mind nor with the intent to sell to Complainant, to disrupt Complainant's business, or to confuse consumers seeking to find Complainant's web site.

 

Respondent agrees that Complainant's evidence of registered trademarks may be sufficient for meeting the low threshold under the first part of the three-part UDRP test.

 

Respondent has rights and a legitimate interest in the <movi.com> domain name. Complainant has not produced any evidence to suggest that Respondent has sought to target Complainant in any way since it registered the domain name, nor any evidence to suggest that Respondent is engaged in a pattern of registering domain names corresponding to Complainant's trademark or to third-party trademarks.

 

Under the Policy, the registration of generic or brandable word(s), such as the <movi.com> domain name, or dictionary word domain names, or acronym domain names, ipso facto establishes Respondent's legitimate interest, provided the domain name was not registered with a trademark in mind and there is no evidence of targeting or passing off.

 

Although Complainant may now have a registered trademark for MOVI, it is almost implausible that it would believe or be able to argue that the public would exclusively associate the phonetic spelling of "Movie" with Complainant. The <movi.com> domain name was registered by Respondent on July 3, 2003, when Respondent's owner purchased the domain name from its prior owner to add to its investment portfolio. The WhoIs history shows an original domain name creation date of October 2, 1995. The original registrant was "Cinema Billboard, Inc." indicating further association of the domain name as a phonetic of the English word "Movie".

 

With Complainant's purported creation in 2019, it is impossible for Respondent to have targeted Complainant when Respondent purchased and registered the domain name in July 2003.

 

Even putting aside the timing and impossibility of Respondent having knowledge of Complainant in 2003, today the limited and specialized use by Complainant in association with its products militates against a finding of any targeting.

 

Respondent is not a cybersquatter. Over the past couple of decades, Respondent has registered tens of thousands of domain names because they have the qualities Respondent believes to be valuable for domain investing.

 

Thus, the only reasonable inference to be drawn leads to the conclusion that Respondent does not target trademarks. Such pattern of descriptive domain name registration supports an inference that the descriptive domain name was not registered with the intent to target a trademark. On the balance of probabilities, considering the facts of this case and Respondent's other descriptive domain names, Respondent has established rights and a legitimate interest in the domain name.

 

It is clear that a business based on investing in domain names satisfies the legitimate interest prong of the Policy, provided there is no evidence a trademark was targeted by the registrant. Respondent's legitimate interest is bolstered by the fact that it uses the domain name in connection with the bona fide provision of advertising services for "Movies" and "Film" related topics. The evidence is that Respondent registered the domain name because of its inherent value as an attractive domain name, used in connection with the bona fide offering of goods and services in the form of PPC ads. This is a common industry practice and does not render a Respondent's interest in a domain name illegitimate.

 

There is no evidence of bad faith registration or use. Respondent registered the domain name simply because it was a common creative phonetic spelling of a highly common dictionary word, for an industry and medium subject to vast 3rd party use and understanding in the public. The global movie and entertainment market is a multi-billion-dollar industry, estimated to be worth $112.31 billion today. Absent specific proof of intent to profit from or target Complainant's mark, bad faith registration cannot be established.

 

Complainant baldly claims that Respondent must have registered the domain name with the knowledge of or to sell it to Complainant. No serious facts are proffered by Complainant to support this allegation. The challenge for Complainant is that it simply did not exist in July 2003 and would not exist until 2019. Indeed, all the evidence points to no awareness of Complainant whatsoever and that the domain name was registered as part of Respondent's long-standing and legitimate branding and website development business.

 

Given the obvious, open and apparent connection between the <movi.com> domain name and the English word "Movie" as well as Complainant's admission in its claim that the domain name was long in use, Complainant knew or should have known it had no viable claim. Any amount of due diligence would have shown that it was a claim calculated and designed to steal a valuable domain name from its rightful owner. Given the rise of questionable claims brought by sophisticated counsel on highly aged domain names, a finding of reverse domain name hijacking is especially important for the UDRP and domain owners to deter future claims and abuses of the system.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has failed to establish all the elements entitling it to relief and has engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(1)       the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)       the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has shown that it has rights in two registered MOVI marks, namely USPTO Reg. No. 7,840,216 for "On-line retail store services featuring hats, shirts, and socks" in International Class 35, and Reg. No. 7,840,218, for "Clothing, namely, hats, socks, shirts", in International Class 25. Both marks were registered on June 24, 2025, claiming first use in commerce on May 31, 2019.

 

The Panel finds Respondent's <movi.com> domain name to be identical to Complainant's MOVI marks, since the inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):

 

(i)                      before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

 

(ii)                      Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(iii)        Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

The <movi.com> domain name was initially registered in 1995 and acquired by Respondent's predecessor on July 3, 2003, and then by Respondent on September 15, 2018 through acquisition of its predecessor. Thus, it owned the domain name for many years prior to the claimed 2019 first use in commerce of Complainant's MOVI marks, registered in 2025. It resolves to a parked webpage displaying the PPC links "Free Full Movie", "Full Movie" and "Watch Movies Free".

 

The Panel notes that there are many decisions and commentary upholding the principle that domain investors do have legitimate interests in brandable domain names that they purchase for future sale so long as they are not targeting a particular trademark owner. See, e.g., UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, § 2.6 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org) ("Speculating in and trading in domain names when done without intent to profit from other's trademarks can in and of itself, constitute a 'legitimate interest' under the Policy…"); The Clash Of Trademarks And Domain Names On The Internet, at 16.01 et seq. (Gerald M. Levine, Legal Corner Press, 2024). Given the timing of Respondent's acquisition of the domain name and its use in relation to its generic meaning, the Panel is satisfied that, before any notice to Respondent of this dispute, Respondent has used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of services, namely investing in potentially valuable, non-infringing domain names and PPC advertising related to movies and films, and has not targeted Complainant or its MOVI marks.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has shown that it has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.

 

Complainant has failed to establish this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is expressed in the conjunctive: "the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith" and Paragraph 4(b) sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), namely:

 

(i)        circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

 

(ii)        you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

 

(iii)        you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

 

(iv)                      by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent could not have been aware of Complainant or  its MOVI mark when Respondent acquired the <movi.com> domain name and has neither registered nor used the domain name in bad faith. 

 

Complainant has failed to establish this element.

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ("RDNH") is defined in Rule 1 as "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name". Rule 15(e) provides, in part:

 

"If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding."

 

As noted, the <movi.com> domain name was initially registered in 1995 and acquired by Respondent's predecessor on July 3, 2003 and then by Respondent itself through its acquisition of its predecessor in 2018, and thus prior to the claimed 2019 first use in commerce of Complainant's MOVI marks, registered in 2025. These circumstances persuade the Panel that Respondent could not have had Complainant and its then non-existent trademark in mind when registering the domain name, a fact easily discoverable by Complainant, and thus the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

 

DECISION

Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <movi.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Chair

Steven M. Levy, Panelist

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

 

Dated: August 18, 2025