DECISION

 

Luma AI, Inc. v. Simon Berntsen / Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf

Claim Number: FA2603002209697

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Luma AI, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Aaron D. Hendelman of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, California, USA. Respondent is Simon Berntsen "Roi Mulia" / Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf ("Respondent"), represented by Edward Levdansky of Herzog Fox & Neeman Law Firm, Israel.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <luma.ai>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Dennis A. Foster as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 10, 2026; Forum received payment on March 10, 2026.

 

On March 11, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <luma.ai> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 March 12, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 16, 2026 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@luma.ai. Also on March 12, 2026, 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 April 16, 2026.

 

An Additional Submission from Complainant was received on April 23, 2026. This Additional Submission complied with Supplemental Rule 7, and shall be considered by the Panel in its decision below.  

 

An Additional Submission from Respondent was received on April 29, 2026. This Additional Submission complied with Supplemental Rule 7, and shall be considered by the Panel in its decision below.

 

On May 3, 2026, the Panel issued an Extension Order extending the Decision due date from May 3, 2026 to May 10, 2026.

 

On April 17, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dennis A. Foster as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

- Complainant is an artificial intelligence ("AI") company based in the United States that offers services for the creation of videos and other media. Complainant launched its business in 2021 and has operated under its LUMA AI service mark since November 2022. Gathering considerable press and media attention and partnering with significant media companies, Complainant's offerings and service mark have generated considerable goodwill. Complainant also utilizes a domain name, <lumalabs.ai>, to host a website that furthers its business interests.

 

- Complainant registered its LUMA AI service mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), and the disputed domain name, <luma.ai>, is virtually identical to that mark because the only minimal difference is the inclusion of a period between the two terms of the mark.

 

- The disputed domain name was first registered on January 5, 2021, but was not put to any business use. Instead, the disputed domain name was marked for sale by as early as February 2022, and remained unused until Respondent acquired the disputed domain name in approximately April, 2024. That action constituted a new registration of the disputed domain name, which occurred significantly after Complainant had solidified its ownership and pertinent use of the LUMA IA service mark.

 

- Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has used the disputed domain name to host websites that offer AI services that compete directly with those offered by Complainant under its service mark. Such use constitutes neither "a bona fide offering of goods or services" nor "a legitimate noncommercial or fair use" of the disputed domain name. Moreover, Respondent's use of a disclaimer on its website associated with the disputed domain name is insufficient to prevent unsuspecting internet users from assuming that website is unaffiliated with Complainant and its AI services. Overall, Respondent attempts to impersonate Complainant with the AI offerings found at said website.

 

- Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Clearly, Respondent was well of aware of Complainant's service mark and business operations before registering the disputed domain name. Thus, Respondent's intention in registering and using the disputed domain name was to offer nearly the same services as those offered by Complainant so as to deceive internet users into believing that they are engaged with Complainant's well-regarded business operations.

 

B. Respondent

- Respondent is Mr. Roi Mulia, a software engineer, businessman and high-tech entrepreneur based in Tel Aviv, Israel, who made an online purchase of the disputed domain name, <luma.ai>, on November 29, 2022. That purchase was made on behalf of a company, SocialKit Ltd., which is based in Israel and owned by Respondent.

 

- On the day before the aforesaid purchase, Respondent had initiated internet email accounts that would be used over the next several months to facilitate the development of a text-to-video product that would be overseen by Respondent and his companies.

 

- Seth Bernstein was never a registrant of the disputed domain name, but served only as technical consultant with a privacy service involved with Respondent's purchase of the disputed domain name. Due to an exchange of letters between Complainant and Respondent, Complainant is well aware that Respondent, and not Mr. Bernstein, is the registrant of the disputed domain name.

 

- On January 25, 2024, after the completion of said text-to-video product, Respondent transferred ownership of the disputed domain name directly to himself. On July 4, 2024 Respondent adopted the company name, Luma AI Ltd., with respect to Respondent's handling of business products offered in connection with the disputed domain name.

 

- On August 26, 2024, Complainant sent Respondent a cease-and-desist letter that referenced Respondent's company, Luma AI Ltd., and demanded that any use of the LUMA AI mark by Respondent be terminated. Later Respondent and Complainant exchanged communications regarding Respondent's use of the disputed domain name for his company based in Israel, not the United States, and Complainant's continued demands that Respondent cease infringement of Complainant's service mark.

 

- Over the last year and a half, Respondent has increased the use of the disputed domain name in the expansion of legitimate products and services, so that Respondent has earned internet financial credits worth US$425,000 for use of its internet platform associated with the disputed domain name.

 

- As the terms, "luma" and "AI," are common descriptive terms within the field of video, Complainant has no rights in them with respect to the Policy, and thus the disputed domain name is not identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

- Respondent is using the disputed domain name for legitimate purposes in conjunction with its provision of video products based upon the generic terms that constitute the disputed domain name. As a result, there is no merit to Complainant's claim that Respondent is attempting to impersonate Complainant in using the disputed domain name. Moreover, Respondent is commonly known as the disputed domain name because Complainant's service mark, LUMA AI, is simply a permutation of Respondent's last name, Mulia, and Respondent owns a company named Luma AI Ltd.

 

- Respondent neither registered nor is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent began use of that name legitimately in Israel at about the same time Complainant claims that it began using its LUMA AI service mark and significantly prior to Complainant's registration of that service mark in the United States. Moreover, on the website connected with the disputed domain name, there is a disclaimer with regard to any connection with the initial AI services company created by Complainant. Furthermore, Respondent's transfer of rights in the disputed domain name from a self-owned company to himself does not constitute a new registration date with respect to that name.

 

- In filing the Complaint, Complainant has engaged in reverse domain name hijacking since: it only began its business operations at about the date upon which the disputed domain name was registered; it is aware of the mere descriptive nature of its own service mark; it knows of Respondent's legitimate business operation with respect to the disputed domain name; and it omitted from the Complaint relevant correspondence with Respondent regarding possible infringement filings.

 

C. Complainant's Additional Submission

- While Complainant began using the distinctive LUMA AI mark in connection with its AI generated video offering as early as November, 2022, Complainant had featured that mark to promote other AI software tools, including through its domain name, <lumalabs.ai>, which was registered in June 2021. By October 27, 2021, Complainant was operating a YouTube account in conjunction with that domain name.

 

- Respondent's contention that the operative disputed domain name registration date is November, 29, 2021 is incorrect. Respondent admits that he transferred the disputed domain name ownership from a company that he owned directly to himself on January 25, 2024, which should be the disputed domain name registration date for purposes of this case.

 

- Trademark registration prior to registration of a disputed domain name is not necessary to establish rights in a trademark or service mark pursuant to a claim for transfer made under the Policy. Both the United States and Israel recognize common law rights in marks as valid in creating defendable ownership of such marks.

 

- Complainant's offerings have been available worldwide, including in Israel, well before Respondent adopted the name, Luma AI Ltd. Moreover, "luma," is not a commonly used generic term within the field of video, but is instead defined as a monetary sub-unit of the term, "dram."

 

- Respondent's contention that LUMA AI is simply an anagram of, and thus confusingly similar to, Respondent's surname, Mulia, is nonsensical. Moreover, Respondent was clearly aware of Complainant's activities before launching any text-to-video services, especially with respect to its company, Luma AI Ltd, which was set up on July 23, 2023.

 

- Evidence of Respondent's bad faith is his registration of the disputed domain name about one month after Complainant launched its downloadable AI video generation tool. Furthermore, Respondent developed a nearly identical AI video generation product subsequent to actual knowledge of Complainant's service mark rights.

 

- After acknowledgement of Complainant's rights in the LUMA AI mark during communications with Complainant, Respondent admitted use of that mark, but only simply as a domain name. Later, when legal settlement discussions between Complainant and Respondent stalled, Respondent began using the disputed domain name to offer services similar to those offered by Complainant under said mark.

 

- Respondent has a history of bad faith use regarding other trademarks, including the SORA mark owned by the United States company, Open AI.

 

- Respondent's claim of reverse domain name hijacking is baseless, as Complainant was unaware of any rights or legitimate interests Respondent might have in the disputed domain name and sent Respondent a cease-and-desist letter in an attempt to settle the situation between them. Ultimately, Respondent's development of a competing business, based upon the disputed domain name that is nearly identical to the LUMA AI mark, led to a filing of the Complaint, which is a proper action under the Policy.

 

D. Respondent's Additional Submission

- Complainant's argument that the registration date for the disputed domain name should be January 25, 2024, instead of November 29, 2022, is baseless. Complainant did not dispute that the disputed domain name was registered by SocialKit Ltd., a company fully owned by Respondent, on November 29, 2022. Complainant's contention that Respondent's transfer of that registration to himself on January 25, 2024 constitutes a new registration date does not comply with WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.9.

 

- Complainant's evidence that it acquired common law rights in the LUMA AI service mark some time in 2021, instead of in late 2022, is unconvincing. Moreover, the descriptive nature of Complainant's claimed mark precludes Complainant from possessing enforceable rights in that mark despite Complainant's flawed registration for that mark with the USPTO.

 

- As to whether Respondent is commonly known as the disputed domain name, all of the letters in his surname, M-U-L-I-A, are included within the disputed domain name, <luma.ai>). Furthermore, Respondent began operating in the text-to-video field in March, 2024, some three months before Complainant began operations in that field. Complainant was previously offering only 3D scanning services with respect to its claimed LUMA AI mark.

 

- Complainant's accusation that Respondent has engaged previously in the abusive adoption of a third-party logo is irrelevant, as the Policy is directed to assess only possible prior abusive domain name registrations, which must occur at least twice before such a pattern may cited in a case under the Policy. Also, a filing under the Policy is not appropriate regarding broad trademark rights disputes, but is limited only to disputed domain name registration.

 

- Respondent is lawfully operating under a registered company, LUMA AI Ltd., in the State of Israel, wherein Complainant has no proven trademark rights.

 

- With respect to reverse domain name hijacking, Complainant's assertion that it had no way of knowing the true identity of the disputed domain name registrant is belied by its letter of August 24, 2024, which is expressly addressed to LUMA AI Ltd., a company fully owned by Respondent.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is a United States company that provides internet customers AI-based services to assist in the creation of videos and other media-related products. Having begun operation in 2021, Complainant has provided its services since November, 2022 under the LUMA AI service mark, which has been registered with the USPTO (i.e., Reg. No. 7,792,979; registered May 13, 2025; international class 09 for downloadable computer software for artificial production of images; international class 042 for on-line non-downloadable software for artificial production of images).

 

Respondent owns the disputed domain name <luma.ai>. The disputed domain was registered on January 5, 2021, and purchased online by the Respondent on November 29, 2022 through a company owned by Respondent that engages in services pertaining to AI-assisted text-to-video products. On January 25, 2024, Respondent transferred ownership of the disputed domain name directly to himself, while continuing to create similar text-to-video products.

 

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 submitted clear evidence of registration of its LUMA AI service mark with the USPTO. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently established rights in that mark per Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Recreational Equipment, Inc. v. Liu Chan Yuan, FA 1954773 (Forum Aug. 9, 2021) ("Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).").

 

In comparing the disputed domain name, <luma.ai>, to Complainant's LUMA AI service mark, the Panel finds them to be nearly identical. The only difference is the insertion in the disputed domain name of a period between the two elements comprising that mark. As a result, the Panel finds that Complainant has proved that the disputed domain name is "identical or confusingly similar" to its service mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The Panel concludes that Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Since the Panel has determined below that Complainant has failed to prove the third element required under the Policy, the Panel will not make a decision regarding the second element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that Complainant must establish that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

In this case, the Panel notes that Complainant claims to have started operating under its service mark LUMA AI sometime in November, 2021. Meanwhile, Respondent has provided evidence that he purchased the disputed domain name online on November 29, 2021. Given the close alignment of these dates, the Panel is not persuaded that Respondent in Israel was aware of Complainant's United States mark prior to registration of the disputed domain name. Alternatively, Complainant argues that, as early as June, 2021 its LUMA AI mark was featured prominently throughout the website attached to its domain name, <lumalabs.ai>, and thus Respondent ought to have been aware of Complainant's mark before registration of the disputed domain name. However, taking into consideration all of the contradictory evidence provided by both parties in this case, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to meet its burden of proof as to bad faith registration of the disputed domain by Respondent. See JumpCloud, Inc. v. Peter Irion / SCS LLC, FA 1914971 (Forum Nov. 27, 2020) ("When a complainant fails to prove a respondent knew or should have known about the complainant at the time of registration of the domain name, it is open to the Panel to find that the respondent did not register the domain name in bad faith."); and Seaway Bolt & Specials Corp. v. Digital Income Inc., FA 114672 (Forum Aug. 5, 2002).

 

In reaching its conclusion above, the Panel is not convinced of Complainant's contention that Respondent's transfer of the disputed domain name from his company to himself constitutes a change in the formal registration date of the disputed domain name.  See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.9 ("Where the respondent provides satisfactory evidence of an unbroken chain of possession, panels typically would not treat merely "formal" changes or updates to registrant contact information as a new registration.").

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has not established that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

Respondent has requested that the Panel issue a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ("RDNH") against Complainant in this case. To do so, the Panel must find that the Complaint was brought in bad faith so as to harass Respondent. See UDRP Rules ¶ 15(e).

 

While in a letter to Respondent Complainant does reference Respondent's relatively new company name Luma AI Ltd. along with other older Respondent companies, it is reasonable for the Panel to find that Complainant in the United States was not familiar with that new company in Israel.  As a result, the Panel does not find that Complainant has filed this Complaint in bad faith.

 

Therefore, the Panel does not find that Complainant has engaged in RDNH.

 

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 <luma.ai> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Dennis A. Foster, Panelist

Dated: May 8, 2026