Is Your Domain Name Property or just a Service?

This has been a debate on the General Assembly Mailing List of which I’m a member for years. It has been asked in the courts for a number of years as well. Is a domain name real property or is it just a service provided by registries through registrars?

Courts have gone both ways on the subject, sometimes finding that it is real property in some cases and in others finding that it isn’t.

I’ve been a member of the General Assembly, the former DNSO mailing lists, the TLDa (TLD owners) and other groups for some time. We have for the most part always accepted that domain names are real property.

This was posted on CircleID.com

Creditor Can Execute Against Domain Name Where Registry is Located: Office Depot v. Zuccarini

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling in Office Depot v. Zuccarini [Scribd link], agreeing that a creditor may levy against a domain name in the jurisdiction where the domain name registry is located. The decision is significant for two reasons. First, it affirms (or reaffirms) that domain names are property subject to the claims of creditors. Second, it allows creditors to proceed against domain names where the registry is located, thus allowing creditors to proceed against domain names in one proceeding and more importantly levy against domain names located abroad (where the registry is located in the United States). Overall, this makes getting at a domain name much easier for creditors.

Here is more about court cases involving whether a domain name is property or not from DomainNews.com

I was up late last night cruising through the 44 page docket from the case involving the 141 gambling domain names seized by the state of Kentucky.  This is a landmark case in my opinion and I wanted to read some of the fine print.  It’s pretty clear that this case will be setting some major precedent regarding jurisdiction and domain name use, but there was something else that caught my eye in the document. The groups involved in the case made several points in their efforts to have the case dismissed, but a discussion on domain names being considered property is the one that made me look twice.

The court discusses the issue of domains as property on about page 12 of the docket.

“The Opposing Groups and Lawyers . . . collectively assert that domain names are akin to a telephone number or a business or residential address only; that domain names are but a combination of letters and numbers, which serves as a mnemonic aid, nothing more. They argue that domains are not property, but are rights in a service contract.”

The docket continues for 3 pages discussing this argument and the court reaches the final conclusion

“the Defendants 141 Domain Names are property, and therefore subject to this Court’s in rem jurisdiction or to possible civil forfeiture”

t’s no surprise that the court ruled that domains are property.  What is surprising is who was among this “Opposing Groups and Lawyers”.  According to page 4 of the docket Network Solutions (NSI) and the Internet Commerce Association (ICA) were lumped in to this group.   The ICA, a group consisting of mostly domainers and domain companies, and NSI, a domain name registrar have joined with other gambling industry groups such as PPA, IGC, and IMEGA to present arguments in this case.  Recognizing these entities are not actuallyplaintiffs defendants, the court grouped them all together and classified them as “Opposing Groups and Lawyers” and did provide for their views to be considered. These views are expressed in this case as “domains are not property”.

What do you think? Are domain names actual property or just a service provided to you just like your phone service or services by utility companies?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Court Says Domain Name Is Located Where Its Registrar Is Located (domainmacher.com)