Court Rules Domain Names Are Property

Mikey writes "An InternetNews article about a decision by a Virginia federal court declaring domain names are property" Why is the courts allowed to decide this? Isn't it really Al Gore's job? (rimshot)

Comments

Registration Fees?

[jelwell]

Doesn't Internic actually own all the domain names? If not, why is it that I have to pay them every two yeats? If this is my property, it apparently has a limited life under my ownership. But, really I don't see why this is any different than renting a building to conduct business in. If that building is owned by Internic and Microsoft sues me they can't take my building - i'm leasing the building from internic. They can however force me to close down business. But the building is still Internic's. Is there a procedure for transferring ownership of leased property to victor's for litigation?

Joseph Elwell.

academic, but may have negative effects

[slew]

Ruling that a domain name is property is academic. In practical situations (i.e., non-squatter
situations), you cannot force someone to relinquish a name as a result of a garnishment
court action.

For example, if your name is OJ simpson and you owe say $10M to someone as a result of a court
action, and you have a 1 person company OJinc which has a domain name which is
your personal property. The court can make you sell your domain name, but according to current
trademark regulations, if the 1 person company OJinc is still using the name in commerce, no one
could legally buy the name and use it. Current garnishment laws do not allow punitive effect for
garnishment actions (you can't take something from someone to pay a debt if it has no economic value).

If, however, it was legal for someone else to use the name, they probably could have used it
originally, except someone took it already. Thus the only people who need to fear this law are
the squatters.

This ruling may help against squatters initially, but it opens up a whole new world of extortion.
If a domain name is property, then it can be a subject of a property-lien. Suppose I squat on a
domain name and I hire you to put up a web page on the domain and say I'll pay you $1M to do the web
site. I don't pay you (of course) and you put a lien on the domain name. Now when the "rightful"
owner of the domain comes along, he won't be able to sell the domain w/o paying off the property-lien
since the property-lien takes precidence over the garnishment action. Ouch.

Somebody better rethink this ruling and say that the domain is a license, not property, or things
could get really ugly.

The Internet, the world, and trademarks

[jani]

(Some people will probably be offended by parts of this comment, as it
contains rather harsh statements about the way the USA is handling the
Internet, which I view as an _international_ network. So if you're
likely to take offense by such views, please skip this comment, and
read someone else's, this isn't good for your heart condition.)

---------------


This comment comes in three parts:

1) USA's laws and court rulings, and their validity on the Internet
2) Trademarks and Internet domain names
3) What about Network Solution, Inc, and domain name registry?


---------------
1) USA's laws and court rulings, and their validity on the Internet


Is the Internet something where only the laws of the United States of
America count, and something which only the USA has jurisdiction over?

I think not.

And it bugs me a bit that few appears to see this, even among those of
you posting comments here.

It is more than twenty years since the Internet became an
international phenomenon, and perhaps it's time that the USA --
government and all -- start to realise that, and stop pretending that
USA's laws and court rulings can be valid for something that is a
world-wide affair.

Sure, I incidentally registered "my" domain name under the
_international_ .org with Internic, which incidentally is run by
Network Solutions, Inc, the USA based company. But I can't really see
how I, as a registrant of an international domain, can be expected to
know and follow the USA's trademarking laws, nor to know which
companies have registered which trademarks in the USA. And I don't
have much of a choice when registering an international domain name,
do I, if I intend for it to be useful?

We might as well give up the DNS services, split the Internet in
national pieces (good thing for European ISPs, who wouln't have to pay
for the costly lines across the pond anymore), and avoid the problem
altogether, because it's absolutely intolerable that the USA should
decide for the rest of the world in this case, as in any other.

An international network must not and can not be run by one
government.

---------------
2) Trademarks and Internet domain names


What about trademarks, then? Should we just ignore them?

Yes.

Trademarks don't prove anything, except for who got there first, and
how the people registering them felt that day.

Some people may still remember a company named Apple, founded by the
Beatles, which tried to prevent Apple, founded by you-know-who, from
using that particular name. That didn't work, because Apple and Apple
were in different markets. Now, how do we solve that, when Apple and
Apple aren't so much in different markets anymore? And, as others have
pointed out, who has the better right to apple.com? The oldest (Apple
in music) or the presumably biggest (Apple in computers)?

Other questions arising are: What should happen if a domain name has
been registered by an organization which _hasn't_ registered that
particular name as a trademark, and some years after, someone else
registers it? Should the traditional organization, known world wide
for its name, have to give it up, just because it was trademarked in,
say, India, by some hitherto unknown company, or a company who decided
to release a product by that name?

The solution is really, really simple, although I feel that I'm
repeating myself here:

Don't accept trademarks as a reason for a "right" to domain names at
all.

There is no way -- currently -- to keep track of all the trademarks
used in the world, and likewise no way to determine a really fair
outcome of disputes. Taking such things to court is a painfully
obvious mistake, and the court where such a case appears should
recognize that.

---------------
3) What about Network Solution, Inc, and domain name registry?


It's definitely time for Network Solution Inc's reign in the kingdom
of international domain name registry to end.

I think the stewardship for international domain names should be split
up, and shared between non-profit organizations of at least two
different continents, maybe three (Asia, Europe, North America), and
with room for expansion later (Africa, Oceania, South America?).

This should provide better redundancy in case of failure, it should
split the workload, and it should make the reliability of things such
as the trans-atlantic links less important for domain name registry.

Coordinating between two, three or four different sites isn't that
difficult, as long as one allows for at sufficient time (twenty-four
hours?) to check for registration collisions (semaphores, anyone?).

Shall we get started?


---------------

These were, of course, just my personal opinions. Treat them as you
like, but please ask before you quote me somewhere else than here on
/., okay? :)

Where was this years ago.

[juuri]

Id like to know where this ruling was years ago when Pepsi strong-armed both me and the internic out of tacobell.com which I had previously owned for years.

My domain had *nothing* to do with the Tacobell restaurant and they had no real legal claims. But this was before the new internic forms rolled out that contained phrasing protecting the internic and trademark holders. The result? The internic dropped the domain from its databases for a 3 month "evaluation" period in which Pepsi somehow became the new domain holder and we got pretty new forms with lots of legal mumbo jumbo thrown in.

Id just like to see someone come and try to take nsa.org from me now (oh wait they already have and lost).


---
Openstep/NeXTSTEP/Solaris/FreeBSD/Linux/ultrix/OSF /...

This needs to be appealed and overruled, quickly.

[CodeShark]

(IMHO and with the note that I am not a lawyer)

My thoughts are that the judge overseeing this case must have been out of his mind. This is an absolutely wrong-headed legal precedant. Look at the basic facts here:

We have a Canadian company which in my mind seems to have legally registered a domain name with the quasi - governmental company responsible for the registration. Umbro files suit, the Canadian company doesn't show up, which gives Umbro a 'default judgement', basically a legal "forfeit." But instead of just turning over the domain, the judge extends trademark laws to include domain names.

Following this, the (greedy b------) lawyers representing Umbro sue Network Solutions to force the sale of all domain names held by the Canadian company, in order to pay for the legal costs. Read this:

"The registrant had no tangible US assets that we could levy on, but they did have a number of other domains that they had registered through NSI, so we asked the court to garnish those so we could seize them and sell them to the highest bidder."

Here's the kicker: how many of us who have registered ordinary domains did a trademark search before they registered? Or have since acquired a trademark to match their domain name? (spendy stuff, this trademark requirement) My point is that it isn't legally required. So if some company out there chooses to sue me because I didn't know they had a trademark, if I can't afford the cost of legally fighting it out in court, but I own several other domain names -- [perhaps with assets or even their own trademarks.] -- this decision gives lawyers a way to go after my other domain assets, whether or not the alleged infringement was intentional.

But here's what really blew me away: "The law firm said the ruling gives trademark lawyers a new sword to combat domain name piracy." Not in my book: it just gives attorneys legal standing to act as domain name pirates on behalf of their clients.

The article mentioned that another trademark attorney said that this ruling is actually a good thing for domain name owners: "Typically we thought registrants had a two-year license to a domain name, but the court is suggesting they have a property interest. As a result, if the registry takes a name away from you without a legal basis, than you can sue them for civil damages.

True. Unless another company had the trademark first, right?