Citizen Journalist Escalates Legal Battle Against Adult Film Studio Over Persistent Domain Harassment

However, the victory proved to be short-lived. The fundamental limitation of the UDRP is its narrow scope: it is an in rem proceeding directed at the domain names themselves, rather than an in personam proceeding against the registrant. While the arbitrator can order the transfer or cancellation of specific URLs, they have no authority to issue injunctions, award monetary damages, or prohibit a respondent from registering new, similar domains in the future.

Almost immediately after losing the UDRP case, the studio allegedly registered a new set of domain names. These new iterations utilized slightly different variations of Mulholland’s name—adding hyphens, middle initials, or different top-level domains—to host the same or similar defamatory content. This created a cycle where the complainant was forced to spend time and resources to win back domains, only to have the respondent "pop up" at a new address within days.

Transitioning to the U.S. District Court

Faced with the reality that the UDRP was an insufficient remedy for ongoing harassment, Mulholland filed a formal lawsuit on Monday in the District of New Jersey. The move signifies a major escalation in the strategy employed by Mulholland and his counsel, Brett Lewis. By moving the case into the federal court system, Mulholland is seeking remedies that are entirely unavailable through administrative arbitration.

The lawsuit includes claims for defamation, seeking to hold the studio liable for the content published across the various websites. Unlike the UDRP, which focuses on the "bad faith" of the registration, a federal defamation claim focuses on the falsity and malice of the speech itself. If successful, this could result in significant monetary damages, providing a financial deterrent that the UDRP lacks.

Crucially, the lawsuit also requests a permanent injunction. Mulholland is asking the court to not only order the transfer of the newly registered domains but to also issue a broad order preventing the studio from registering any additional domains that incorporate his name or variations thereof. An injunction carries the weight of the court; a violation of such an order could lead to charges of contempt, potentially resulting in fines or even imprisonment for the individuals behind the studio.

The Role of Legal Counsel and the "Whac-A-Mole" Metaphor

Brett Lewis, who has maintained a consistent presence in this case from the initial UDRP filing to the current federal lawsuit, is a specialist in the niche field of domain name law. His involvement underscores the complexity of these disputes. The "whac-a-mole" metaphor used to describe this case is particularly apt in the digital age. In the physical world, a court order to stay away from a person or a property is relatively easy to monitor. In the digital world, where a new "property" (a domain) can be created in seconds from any location globally, enforcement is notoriously difficult.