https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/01/federal-court-in-virginia-court-says-domain-names-are-not-property-but-contractual-rights.htm Thu, 20 Feb 2014 21:13:11 +0000 hourly 1 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/01/federal-court-in-virginia-court-says-domain-names-are-not-property-but-contractual-rights.htm#comment-728 Thu, 20 Feb 2014 21:13:11 +0000 http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=11572#comment-728 […] Federal Court in Virginia court says domain names are not property, but contractual rights (Venkat Balasubramani, 14 Jan 2014) – Following the sex.com case from the Ninth Circuit , it is taken for granted that domain names are property that can be converted, sold, transferred, or subject to a creditor’s collection efforts. Interestingly, a federal district court in Virginia took a contrary view. The case arose out of a bankruptcy of Alexandria Surveys International. Two competing Alexandria surveying companies were trying to buy the assets of ASI and ended up with conflicting claims. The first company, Alexandria Surveys, LLC, acquired the telephone number and web address from Cox Communications, the provider, under the theory that these were executory contracts that could be taken over. However, the estate was reopened at the request of a second company (Alexandria Consulting Group) and in the second go around ACG purchased a bunch of assets from the trustee, including the web address and telephone number. The bankruptcy court ordered the ASL to turn over the web address and telephone number (and servers) to ACG. ASL objected, arguing that the web address and telephone numbers were not “property of the bankruptcy estate.” The district court agrees with ASL on appeal. The court largely relies on the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision in Network Solutions v. Umbro : “a domain name registrant acquires the contractual right to use a unique domain name for a specified period of time . . . ‘a domain name is not personal property but rather’ the product of a contract for services.” ACG tried to distinguish Umbro on the basis that it involved a garnishment proceeding, but the court says that the key part of the holding-that a domain name is a “contractual right”-applies regardless. The court says that because ASI did not have a property interest in the website and phone number at most it had a contractual interest and since the trustee did not assume it, there was nothing to be sold to ACG. […]

]]> https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/01/federal-court-in-virginia-court-says-domain-names-are-not-property-but-contractual-rights.htm#comment-727 Wed, 05 Feb 2014 16:36:32 +0000 http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=11572#comment-727 […] holders to possess a property right in their domain names (as mentioned in Eric Goldman’s blog).  The ruling also complicates some property based legal actions, like conversion (committing an […]

]]> https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/01/federal-court-in-virginia-court-says-domain-names-are-not-property-but-contractual-rights.htm#comment-726 Wed, 05 Feb 2014 01:50:44 +0000 http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=11572#comment-726 […] in Virginia from last year concerning a bankruptcy proceeding, which came to the conclusion that domain names are not property, but rather a contractual right. The ruling is somewhat specific to the bankruptcy context, but […]

]]> https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/01/federal-court-in-virginia-court-says-domain-names-are-not-property-but-contractual-rights.htm#comment-725 Wed, 22 Jan 2014 18:16:00 +0000 http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=11572#comment-725 An interesting project to keep an eye on is I think Namecoin. It’s a decentralized naming system based off of the bitcoin protocol where URLS and domain names can be assigned by first come, first served, no other way.

]]>