Court grants GoDaddy’s motion for attorneys’ fees; domain registrant files appeal.
A federal court has ordered a GoDaddy customer to pay approximately $652,000 in attorneys’ fees after losing litigation against the domain registrar. The dispute centers on the registration and suspension of the domain einthusan.tv, a site known for hosting South Asian films, and the scope of GoDaddy’s rights under its terms of service.
Leo India Films Limited registered the einthusan.tv domain through GoDaddy. In July 2019, GoDaddy suspended the domain after receiving a communication from the Office of the Inspector General of Policy, Maharashtra Cyber, in Mumbai, which alleged that the site was infringing copyrights and engaged in piracy. The suspension prompted Leo India Films to file a lawsuit against GoDaddy the same month.
In its complaint, Leo India Films raised four claims: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (characterized in its papers as sounding either in tort or, alternatively, in contract); (3) tortious interference with contract and business relations; and (4) procedural and substantive unconscionability. The registrant argued that GoDaddy’s actions in suspending the domain violated the contractual relationship and that certain provisions of the registrar’s terms of service were unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.
GoDaddy defended by relying on the domain registration agreement that Leo India Films had accepted. That agreement contains broad discretionary language allowing GoDaddy to “deny, cancel, terminate, suspend, lock or modify access to (or control of) any Account or Services (including the right to cancel or transfer any domain name registration) for any reason (as determined by [GoDaddy] in its sole and absolute discretion),” including to comply with law enforcement requests and to avoid civil or criminal liability. GoDaddy emphasized that such clauses are standard in the industry and presented evidence that the site owner later agreed to similar terms with other registrars after the initial suspension.
After briefing and argument, the court entered summary judgment in GoDaddy’s favor last year, resolving the case without a trial. Summary judgment is a procedural ruling that occurs when a judge determines there is no genuine dispute of material fact and that one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Following that ruling, GoDaddy moved for an award of its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred defending the suit.
In May of this year, the court granted GoDaddy’s motion for attorneys’ fees and ordered Leo India Films to pay approximately $652,000. The fee award reflects the court’s post-judgment finding that an award of fees was appropriate under the governing contract terms or applicable law. The imposition of a sizable fee award in favor of a defendant registrar underscores the potential financial risk registrants face when challenging registrar actions in court.
Leo India Films has appealed the judgment and the fee award. The appeal means an appellate court will review the district court’s legal conclusions, including the summary judgment decision and the basis for awarding attorneys’ fees. Appeals can address issues such as whether the district court properly interpreted the terms of service, whether the unconscionability argument was correctly rejected, and whether the court applied the correct legal standard in awarding fees.
This dispute highlights several recurring themes in domain name and copyright-related litigation: the role and discretion of domain registrars, the content of registrar terms of service, the weight courts give to industry-standard contract language, and the significant costs that can accompany unsuccessful litigation. Registrants and site operators often confront a contractual regime that grants registrars broad authority to act in response to third-party complaints or law enforcement communications. When registrants challenge those actions in court, they risk not only losing on the merits but also being required to pay the registrar’s legal fees if the court finds such an award warranted.
As the appeal proceeds, parties and observers will be watching whether the appellate court upholds the district court’s findings or provides a different interpretation of the contractual or equitable issues raised by Leo India Films. The outcome could have implications for how registrars draft and enforce terms of service and for the willingness of domain owners to litigate disputes over suspensions and alleged copyright infringement.