DECISION

 

IMDb.com, Inc. v. Theresa Chavez

Claim Number: FA2607002232999

 

PARTIES

Complainant is IMDb.com, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Theresa Chavez ("Respondent"), Michigan, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <boxofficemojo.vip> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with Porkbun 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.

 

David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 15, 2026.

 

Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint on July 22, 2026, following the Registrar's disclosure of the underlying registrant information.

 

On July 17, 2026, Porkbun LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <boxofficemojo.vip> domain name is registered with Porkbun LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Porkbun LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Porkbun 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 July 23, 2026, Forum served the Amended Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 12, 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@boxofficemojo.vip. Also on July 23, 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.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On August 13, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges:

 

That it operates the IMDb information service, launched in 1996, which is the world's most popular and authoritative source of information on movies, television shows, and celebrities, and that its professional offerings include the Box Office Mojo box office analysis service, launched in 1999. BOX OFFICE MOJO is a registered trademark, and Complainant used and registered the mark long before Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on October 17, 2025.

 

That the Disputed Domain Name <boxofficemojo.vip> is confusingly similar to Complainant's BOX OFFICE MOJO trademark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, omitting only the spaces between the words and adding the ".vip" gTLD, neither of which distinguishes the Disputed Domain Name from the mark.

 

That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent is not commonly known by BOX OFFICE MOJO, is not affiliated with Complainant, and is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's trademark. The website resolving from the Disputed Domain Name displays Complainant's trademark as its masthead logo against movie imagery and presents a login screen soliciting users' telephone numbers and passwords, with no disclaimer and no other indication of source. That use is passing off, may serve to phish for the account credentials of Complainant's customers, and is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

 

That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent registered it with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights; the resolving website creates the false impression of a website originating with or endorsed by Complainant and promotes purportedly professional movie-related services, attracting Internet users for commercial gain and disrupting Complainant's business under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv); the login screen may facilitate phishing or other fraud; and Respondent is the subject of numerous adverse UDRP decisions, including one concerning the same trademark, demonstrating a pattern of conduct.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds the following:

 

Complainant, a Delaware corporation, operates the IMDb information service for movies, television, and celebrities at <imdb.com>, launched in 1996, and provides box office analysis services under the Box Office Mojo brand, launched in 1999, at <boxofficemojo.com>. The United States Patent and Trademark Office records in evidence show that Complainant owns United States Trademark Registration No. 3,271,257 for BOX OFFICE MOJO (the "BOX OFFICE MOJO Mark"), registered on July 31, 2007 on an application filed October 6, 2006, and that the registration passed to Complainant from Box Office Mojo, LLC by a merger effective July 7, 2008, recorded on December 18, 2008. Complainant's rights in the BOX OFFICE MOJO Mark accordingly predate the Disputed Domain Name by many years.

 

The public WHOIS record shows that the Disputed Domain Name was created on October 17, 2025 and was registered in the name of the privacy service "Private by Design, LLC," the registrant details being redacted. The Registrar's verification of July 17, 2026 confirms that the Disputed Domain Name is registered with Porkbun LLC, discloses the underlying registrant as Theresa Chavez of Southfield, Michigan, and records that the registration agreement is in English and that the registration runs to October 17, 2026. The disclosed name bears no resemblance to the Disputed Domain Name, and nothing in the record suggests that Respondent has been known as Box Office Mojo or by any similar name. Complainant's statements that Respondent is unaffiliated with it and was never licensed or authorized to use the BOX OFFICE MOJO Mark stand uncontested.

 

The screenshot in the record shows that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website (the "Respondent's Website") whose masthead reproduces the BOX OFFICE MOJO Mark in red lettering over film-reel imagery, beneath which appear the words "Hello! Welcome" and "We provide professional data optimization services," and below those a panel headed "Login Now" inviting the visitor to enter a telephone number and a password, alongside a link to register. The Respondent's Website carries no disclaimer of affiliation, and the page itself identifies no source other than Complainant's mark. On the uncontested record, the Panel finds that the Respondent's Website is presented so as to convey that it originates with or is authorized by Complainant, and that it solicits visitors' credentials under that false appearance. The Panel finds that this solicitation of log-in credentials behind Complainant's mark is phishing.

 

The record also contains the decision in IMDb.com, Inc. v. You Shun Liu / wang lei / zhou chen guang / tian qing wang luo / Theresa Chavez, FA 2188956 (Forum Dec. 15, 2025), in which a Forum panel ordered the transfer of six domain names, three of them incorporating the BOX OFFICE MOJO Mark, on findings that the respondent there, appearing under several names including Theresa Chavez, had used them to impersonate Complainant and harvest users' login credentials. The screenshots of those websites in the record carry the same greeting, the same offer of "professional data optimization services," and login forms of the same kind as the Respondent's Website.

 

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.

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing the complaint, notwithstanding the respondent's default, where the complainant failed to produce clear evidence supporting its subjective allegations).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant's rights in the BOX OFFICE MOJO Mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) rest on the United States registration described in the FINDINGS. A nationally registered trademark prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of trademark rights under the first element. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.2.1.

 

The Disputed Domain Name <boxofficemojo.vip> reproduces the BOX OFFICE MOJO Mark in its entirety, omitting only the spaces that the domain name system cannot carry, and appends the ".vip" gTLD, which is a technical requirement of registration and is disregarded in the comparison. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.11.1. A Forum panel reached the same conclusion on the same mark and the same second-level string in FA 2188956, finding <boxofficemojo.cc> confusingly similar to the BOX OFFICE MOJO Mark.

 

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's BOX OFFICE MOJO Mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, whereupon the burden of production shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of such rights or interests. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 2.1.

 

The registrant disclosed by the Registrar is "Theresa Chavez," a name bearing no relation to the Disputed Domain Name, and the record shows no use by Respondent of "Box Office Mojo" as a name of its own. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and holds no license or authorization to use the BOX OFFICE MOJO Mark. Respondent is therefore not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Operi Manaha, FA 1815225 (Forum Dec. 10, 2018) (respondent not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the WHOIS information identifies a registrant name bearing no resemblance to it and nothing else in the record suggests authorization to use the mark).

 

Nor does Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name confer rights or legitimate interests. Respondent has taken the BOX OFFICE MOJO Mark as the whole of the second-level domain and uses it for a website that presents Complainant's mark as its own branding and invites visitors to enter a telephone number and a password. Using a confusingly similar domain name to pose as the mark owner and to draw Internet users to an imposter website is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Target Brands, Inc. v. rizwan shad / Nosheen Rizwan, FA 2174563 (Forum Oct. 1, 2025) (use of the disputed domain names "to pose as Complainant and misdirect internet users to Respondent's imposter websites is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)").

 

Complainant has made out its prima facie case, and Respondent, having filed no Response, has come forward with nothing to rebut it. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The second-level domain is the BOX OFFICE MOJO Mark and nothing else, and the Respondent's Website reproduces that Mark in stylized red lettering over film imagery of the kind associated with Complainant's service. Complainant's registration issued in 2007 and its service has operated under the mark since 1999. The Panel infers from the composition of the Disputed Domain Name and the content of the Respondent's Website that Respondent knew of the BOX OFFICE MOJO Mark, and finds that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on October 17, 2025 with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights.

 

By using the Disputed Domain Name for a website that presents Complainant's mark as its own branding, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to the Respondent's Website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the BOX OFFICE MOJO Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website and of the services offered on it, within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). The services announced there are offered behind a registration and login, and the Panel is satisfied on the uncontested record that the Respondent's Website is commercial in character.

 

The Respondent's Website does not merely display Complainant's mark; it invites the visitor to surrender a telephone number and a password to a page carrying that mark. The Soliciting credentials from Internet users by a page held out, falsely, as Complainant's own is phishing, and the Panel finds that Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name to that end. That the record does not show what became of any credentials collected does not alter the character of the solicitation, which is complete on the face of the Respondent's Website, and the use of a domain name for that purpose is further evidence of bad faith registration and use. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 3.4; see also Chase Corporation v. Blanca Luna / Chase Corporation, FA 1993965 (Forum June 10, 2022) (finding that a resolving website duplicating the complainant's mark and featuring a user login page requiring the submission of potentially sensitive information qualifies as phishing).

 

Respondent's conduct is not isolated. In FA 2188956, decided on December 15, 2025, a Forum panel found the same respondent to have engaged in a pattern of bad-faith conduct under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). The Disputed Domain Name was registered within the same period, and put to the same use, as the domain names in that case. The Panel finds that the registration of the Disputed Domain Name forms part of a pattern of conduct within Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Provide Commerce, Inc. v. Jardimar Holdings Corp / Ernesto Charingola, FA 1502077 (Forum June 27, 2013) ("the existence of previous UDRP decisions where Respondent was found to have registered a domain name in bad faith reveals Respondent's pattern of cybersquatting behavior"). That the registration was made behind a privacy service, Respondent being identified only when the Registrar disclosed the underlying registrant, lends this conclusion modest further support. See Microsoft Corporation v. Arif Khan, FA 1907105 (Forum Aug. 31, 2020).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <boxofficemojo.vip> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: August 13, 2026