RE: [gnso-raa-b] Is there any revision to the US supreme court ruling of 2000 that "Internet domain names are a new form of intellectual property"?

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

California law is clearly contrary to the Virginia Supreme Court opinion
from 2000, which may now be outdated.  Here, domains are intangible property
which can be wrongfully converted (ala sex.com decision of the California
Supreme Court) and seized to satisfy legal judgments (ala recent Zuccarini
decision of the 9th Circuit).  I believe the US Supreme Court has not yet
spoken on this issue, and there is no applicable federal law.

 

NSI's termination language seems industry standard for registration
agreements.  Registry-Registrar agreements generally also reserve these
rights to the registries, as those rights are reserved to them in their
Registry Agreements with ICANN.  And several of them even have further
anti-abuse policies as well.  Verisign's contracts are a notable exception.
This issue was examined in depth by the Registration Abuse Policies WG last
year, and remains an open issue for potential policy development as
suggested in that group's Final Report.  

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com

 

From: owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Hammock, Statton
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 2:16 PM
To: Sivasubramanian M; gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-raa-b] Is there any revision to the US supreme court
ruling of 2000 that "Internet domain names are a new form of intellectual
property"?

 

Siva, 

 

I'll try to answer your question.

 

A domain name is not property of any sort - it is a contract right that does
not exist separate and apart from the services performed by a registrar.
Wornow v. Register.com, Inc., 2004 N.Y. Slip. Op. 04776 (App. Div., June 8,
2004) (citing Network Solutions, Inc. v. Umbro Int'l, Inc., 259 Va. 759,
770, 529 S.E.2d 80, 86 (2000)).  Other court decisions have held that a
domain name is simply an address.  It is valueless apart from the content or
goodwill to which it is attached.  A domain name that is not a trademark
entails only contract, not property rights.  Thus, a domain name
registration is the product of a contract for services between the registrar
and registrant.  Dorer v. Arel, 60 F. Supp. 2d 558, 561 (E.D. Va. 1999).
When the contract between a registrar and registrant expires or terminates,
the domain name ceases to exist.  Property, on the other hand, does not
cease to exist merely because services associated with the property come to
an end.

 

            Because a domain name is a product of a contract for services,
the disposition of the domain name is a function of the terms of the
contract.  For instance, Network Solutions' current Service Agreement with
registrants provides:

10. TERMINATION. 

a. By You. You may terminate this Agreement upon at least thirty (30) days
written notice to Network Solutions for any reason.

b. By Us. We may terminate this Agreement or any part of the Network
Solutions services at any time in the event you breach any obligation
hereunder, fail to respond within ten (10) calendar days to an inquiry from
us concerning the accuracy or completeness of the information referred to in
Section 4 of this Agreement, if we determine in our sole discretion that you
have violated the Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy, which is located
on our Website at http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/aup.jsp and is
incorporated herein and made part of this Agreement by reference, or upon
thirty (30) days prior written notice if we terminate or significantly alter
a product or service offering.

 

Thus, Network Solutions has the power and authority to terminate its
registration services, under some circumstances, as provided in its Service
Agreement.  

 

The language from the Network Solutions agreement you cited is more than ten
years old and is very much out of date. 

 

I hope this is helpful. 

 

 Statton Hammock 
 Sr. Director, Law, Policy & Business Affairs 


http://www.networksolutionsretail.com/signature/netsollogo09.gif

P 703-668-5515  M 703-624-5031 www.networksolutions.com

 

 

From: owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Sivasubramanian M
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 4:34 PM
To: gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-raa-b] Is there any revision to the US supreme court ruling
of 2000 that "Internet domain names are a new form of intellectual
property"?

 

Hello

 

There is a very old report at page
http://news.cnet.com/2010-1071-281311.html that says that in the year 2000,
the US supreme court reversed a 1999 circuit court ruling that "Internet
domain names are a new form of intellectual property". 

 

1)  Is there any revision on this US supreme court ruling that domain names
are not intellectual property ? Is ICANN's position on ownership of a domain
name entirely governed by the US Supreme Court decision of 2000 or later, if
revised?

 

2) This report also says that Network Solutions revised its Domain
Registration Agreement (based on the Supreme Court ruling ??? ) in Nov 1999
which gave the company sweeping rights such as. The agreement states:  

 

. NSI may terminate "domain name registration services" if the registrant
uses them for "any improper purpose, as determined in our sole discretion."
The term "improper" is left open for NSI to interpret.

 

Ten years later, in 2010, is this power to terminate a domain name with the
Registrar, Registry or with ICANN ?  

 

Sivasubramanian M
http://www.isocmadras.com
facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz