Mira Holdings, Inc. v. ZoomerMedia, Ltd., 676 F.Supp.3d 909

Background:

Mira Holdings registered IDEACITY.COM with NameBright in December 2019 and has parked/monetized the domain; it never used the domain for educational services and alleges it never offered to sell IDEACITY.COM to ZoomerMedia or provided false WHOIS contact info.
ZoomerMedia owns a U.S. Class 41 trademark for “IdeaCity” (educational services) and filed a UDRP complaint with the Canadian International Internet Dispute Resolution Centre on June 8, 2022.
Following the UDRP filing, NameBright locked IDEACITY.COM and a CIIDRC panel ordered transfer of the domain to ZoomerMedia on July 29, 2022; the domain remains locked pending transfer.
Mira sued in federal court seeking (1) declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that its registration/use does not violate the ACPA or the Lanham Act and (2) injunctive relief under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v) (reverse-domain-name-hijacking remedy under the ACPA).
ZoomerMedia moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); Mira did not file a response. The Court evaluated the motion on the merits.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v) (reverse-domain-hijacking/injunctive relief)	Mira alleges it registered IDEACITY.COM, parked it with monetizers, has no intent to divert customers, never offered to sell the domain to ZoomerMedia, and did not supply false contact info — therefore no bad-faith intent to profit.	ZoomerMedia contends Mira’s allegations are conclusory, lacks trademark/use rights, and admitted attempting to sell the domain, so Mira didn’t plead lack of bad faith.	Denied dismissal — allegations sufficiently plead lack of bad faith and a plausible § 1114(2)(D)(v) claim.
Declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 re: Lanham Act infringement/dilution	Seeks a declaration that registration/use of IDEACITY.COM does not infringe/dilute ZoomerMedia’s mark and that Mira may keep the domain.	ZoomerMedia argues no actual controversy and the claim is unclear or duplicative.	Court found an actual controversy exists (UDRP action, statements about confusion, future use) and denied dismissal as to Lanham Act declaratory relief.
Declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 as to the ACPA (15 U.S.C. § 1125(d))	Requests declaration that IDEACITY.COM does not violate the ACPA.	Argues this is duplicative of the § 1114(2)(D)(v) reverse-domain claim and serves no useful purpose.	Granted dismissal without prejudice as duplicative of the § 1114(2)(D)(v) claim.
Statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(d)	Seeks statutory damages instead of actual damages.	§ 1117(d) applies only to affirmative cybersquatting violations under § 1125(d)(1), not to reverse-domain-hijacking claims.	Granted dismissal with prejudice — statutory damages unavailable here.

Key Cases Cited

Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2012) (pleading standard and plausibility required to survive Rule 12(b)(6))
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (courts need not accept conclusory allegations)
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007) (requirements for an actual controversy under the Declaratory Judgment Act)
Barcelona.com, Inc. v. Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento De Barcelona, 330 F.3d 617 (4th Cir. 2003) (describing ACPA protections for registrants and reverse-domain actions)
Utah Lighthouse Ministry v. Foundation for Apologetic Info. & Research, 527 F.3d 1045 (10th Cir. 2008) (bad-faith intent to profit can be shown by offering domain to trademark owner at extortionate price)
Bryson v. Gonzales, 534 F.3d 1282 (10th Cir. 2008) (plaintiff must allege material elements to sustain recovery)
Cardinal Chemical Co. v. Morton Int'l, Inc., 508 U.S. 83 (1993) (party seeking declaratory judgment bears burden to show actual controversy)
RE/MAX, LLC v. Quicken Loans Inc., 295 F. Supp. 3d 1163 (D. Colo. 2018) (discussion of pleading plausibility standard under Rule 12(b)(6))