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"?

["Hammock, Statton" <shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Marc and Mike,

 

Thanks for adding your comments. 

 

I am aware of these cases and the fact that courts in California have
fashioned a different line of caselaw that edge domains closer to a
property interest in under certain contexts (bankruptcy, for example).
Nonetheless, the Umbro line is what applies in Virginia and in many
other jurisdictions and Ifelt it 

appropriate to cite it since Siva was inquiring about the application of
the Network Solutions Service Agreement. 

 

Best, 

 

Statton 

 

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

 

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

 

 

From: Trachtenberg, Marc H. [mailto:MTrachtenberg@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:41 PM
To: Hammock, Statton; 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"?

 

Statton,

 

While that interpretation is certainly the most favorable to registrars,
I do not think that it is supported in the case law.  There are a number
of cases after the cases you cited that you conveniently left out, such
as:

 

Kremin v. Cohen, 325 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2003) - The Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals definitively answered that a domain name was property and
therefore could support a claim for conversion. 

 

 Office Depot, Inc. v. Zuccarini, 621 F. Supp. 2d 773 (N.D. Cal. 2007) -
District Court for the Northern District of California holds that domain
names are property subject to levying to satisfy a judgment under
California state law and are located  in the location of both the
registrar and the registry

 

Bosh v. Zavala, C.D. Cal., No. 2:08-cv-04851 - central District of
California rules that domain names are personal property subject to
California's turnover law, located in the ND of CA and can be levied to
satisfy a judgment, and orders transfer of almost 800 domain names to
NBA superstar Chris Bosh to satisfy judgment against squatter who
registered chrisbosh.com in violation of ACPA.*

 

*disclaimer - this was my case.

 

Best regards,

 

Marc H. Trachtenberg 

Winston & Strawn LLP
35 W. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601-9703

D: +1 (312) 558-7964

M: +1 (773) 677-3305 

F: +1 (312) 558-5700

Bio <http://www.winston.com/index.cfm?contentID=24&itemID=15281>  | 
VCard <http://www.winston.com/sitefiles/wsvcard/15281.vcf>  | Email
<mailto:mtrachtenberg@xxxxxxxxxxx>  | www.winston.com
<http://www.winston.com> 

Follow us on Twitter twitter.com/winstonadlaw
<http://twitter.com/winstonadlaw> 

 

From: owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Hammock, Statton
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 4:16 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 



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



The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential.
Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it
without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to
waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message
without the permission of the author.
************************************************************************
******
Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and
cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.