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

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.

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?