Tužba protiv Exit-a zbog domena www.exitfest.org

[Aleksandar Marković]

Jedan od osnivača Exit-a Dušan Kovačević podneo je tužbu protiv Exit, menadžera Exit-a Bojana Boškovića, Ivana Milivojeva i Vladana Jolera, kao i internet provajdera "Verat" i "Neobee", optuživši ih da su nelegalno preregistrovali domen www.exitfest.org. Tužba sled i protiv Udruženja EXIT zbog "zloupotrebe žiga i autorskog dela 'Egzita'", kojom će zatražiti privremenu meru zabrane udruženju za korišćenje Brenda. Kovačević na ime odštete traži od tuženih 40 miliona dinara - "Kako je celokupna prodaja karata za ovogodišnji festival išla preko ovog domena, u pitanju je ozbiljno krivično delo čiji počinioci bi mogli završiti u zatvoru" – Kovačević.

deo iz saopštenja + ag.

[nixa]

^ i tu se nas sud nasmeja slatko

[DusanKov]

Tekst tuzbe.

OPŠTINSKI SUD
NOVI SAD

Tužilac: DUŠAN KOVAČEVIĆ iz Novog Sada, ul. Ravanička br. 3, koga zastupaju:

Tuženi: I UDRUŽENJE GRAĐANA EXIT, Novi Sad, Pozorišni Trg br. 1
II DOO VERAT, Beograd, ul. Alekse Nenadovića br. 19, lice ovlašćeno za
zastupanje-direktor Verica Radović
III IVAN MILIVOJEV, Novi Sad, sa adrese tuženog I-reda
IV BOŠKOVIĆ BOJAN, Novi Sad, sa adrese tuženog I-reda
V JOLER VLADAN, Novi Sad, sa adrese tuženog I-reda
VI DOO NEOBEE, Novi Sad, ul. Jevrejska br. 1, lice ovlašćeno za
zastupanje-direktor Luka MIrković

T U Ž B A

Radi: utvrđenja prava vlasništva i naknade štete
Vrednost spora: 40.000.000,00 dinara
Primeraka: 7
Priloga: _ + punomoćje
_________________________________________

Činjenično stanje:

Tužilac je imao registrovan domen exitfest.org, koji domen je hostovao na provajderu koji je u vlasništvu tuženog II-reda. Zvaničan administrator predmetnog domena pri provajderu tuženog II-reda bio je Dragan Antonić (Novi Sad, ul. Cara Dušana br. 51). Navedeni administrator domena exitfest.org je i platio registraciju i produženje registracije domena u ime vlasnika, ovde tužioca.

DOKAZ: Nesporno, saslušanje tužioca, tuženog II-reda i Dragana Antonića

Pre nego što bi nastavili sa narativno-činjeničnim delom tužbenog zahteva, svrsishodno je navesti nekoliko činjenica i uopštenih pravila poslovanja koji se primenjuju u ovoj materiji, posebno imajući u vidu njihvu sve učestaliju primenu u današnje vreme.

Naime, internet “domen“ je internet adresa, koju registruju fizička ili pravna lica, pri određenim “provajderima“. Samim činom registracije “registrant“ odn. lice koje je registrovalo određeni domen na svoje ime, postaje i vlasnik tog određenog domena(internet adrese).

“Provajderi“ omogućuju da određen domen (adresa) bude priključen internetu. Kada je jedan domen priključen na internet preko određenog provajdera, odn. kada određen provajder vrši uslugu priključivanja i držanja određenog domena i njegovog sadržaja na internetu, taj odnos i usluga prezentirana od strane provajdera se naziva “hostingom“ određenog domena od strane tog izvesnog provajdera (hosting,engl.reč, prev. ugošćavanje, prim.aut).

U našem konkretnom slučaju, tužilac je bio registrant (vlasnik) domena (internet adrese) exitfest.org, a koji domen je hostovao (bio priključen na internet) na provajderu tuženog II-reda.

Nadalje, kada je neko lice vlasnik, odn. registrant određenog domena, registruje odn. ovlašćuje i svog “administratora“ pri provajderu na kojem hostuje njegov domen, a koji administrator ima i svoju zvaničnu prijavljenu e-mail adresu preko koje komunicira sa provajderom. Ovako prijavljeni administrator je, pravno govoreći, ovlašćeni punomoćnik registranta(vlasnika domena) koji uz pomoć “šifre“ ima mogućnost ulaska u datoteku provajdera koja se odnosi na podatke o domenu.
Shodno navedenom, vlasnik domena preko svog administratora vrši određene korekcije na svom domenu(npr. plaća godišnju naknadu za rezervaciju domena-internet adrese, vrši određene korekcije, vrši transfer(prenos) domena sa jednog provajdera na drugi porvajder, vrši prenos vlasništva nad domenom...), a koje promene administrator unosi u datoteku provajdera, pa je, ukoliko je u skladu sa pravilima, provajder konstatuje i odobrava.

Svaka korekcija u vezi nekog domena, pri provajderu na kojem hostuje, beleži se u tzv. WHOIS datoteci.

Imajući u vidu činjenicu da naše zakonodavstvo još nema zakonske propise koje utvrđuju i regulišu ovu, danas vrlo aktivnu materiju, prvajderi koriste međunarodne, opšte prihvaćene pravilnike u postupanju u ovoj obalsti. Shodno navedenom, tužilac će kao dokaz za ove svoje tvrdnje dostaviti mnogobrojne pravilnike kako domaćih tako i stranih provajdera koja obavljaju delatnost registrovanja internet domena, i isto tako predložiće domaće renomirane stručnjake u svojstvu svedoka-veštaka.

U našem konkretnom slučaju, od kada je domen hostovan na provajderu tuženog II-reda zvaničan administrator domena pri provajderu je bio Dragan Antonić i isto tako registrant odn. vlasnik domena je bio tužilac.

DOKAZ: Nesporno, kao gore, eventualno izvod iz istorijata svih
promena iz datoteke WHOIS od trenutka registracije
domena exitfest.org

Stim u vezi, kada se vrši transfer hostovanja određenog domena na nekom od provajdera nophodno je da takav zahtev (npr. za transfer hostovanja određenog domena sa jednog provajdera na neki drugi provajder) bude “autorizovan” (odobren) od strane zvaničnog administratora predmetnog domena.

Navedeno napominjemo posebno obzirom da je provajder tuženog II-reda primio inicijaciju za transfer domena exitfest.org i provajder tuženog II-reda iako gore navedena inicijacija za transfer nije došla od zvaničnog administratora domena exitfest.org, odn. takav retransfer nije bio autorizovan od strane za to ovlašćenog lica, provajder tuženog II-reda je sproveo takav zahtev i promenio je registranta(vlasnika) domena exitfest.org sa dotadašnjeg vlasnika, ovde tužioca, na tuženog IV-reda, bez znanja i saglasnosti tužioca.

Navedeni transfer je NIŠTAV.

Ovde opet moramo napraviti malu digresiju, sve radi pravilnog i potpunog uvida postupajućeg suda u činjenično stanje ove pravne stvari, pa tako moramo napomenuti i da je tužilac odmah nakon otkrivanja gore nabrojanih prevarnih i nelegalnih radnji zahtevao od tuženog II-reda da izvrši povraćaj domena na “starog” vlasnika, ovde tužioca, međutim tuženi II-reda je paušalno saopštio tužiocu, da je zahtev za transfer bio autorizovan, obzirom da je inicijacija(zahtev) za transfer bila autorizovana obzirom da je zahtev sadržao šifru, a koja šifra jeste bila ispravna i istu je znao i administrator domena exitfest.org .

DOKAZ: Pismo tuženog II-reda br. 875 od 12.06.2006.g

Da sumiramo, provajder tuženog II-reda dobija zahtev-inicijaciju za transfer domena exitfest.org sa dotadašnjeg vlasnika, ovde tužioca, na tuženog IV-reda, a koji zahtev jeste sadržao šifru koja je neophodna prilikom inicijacije takvih promena-transfera. Međutim, ponavljamo, navedena inicijacija nije došla(stigla) sa zvanične e-mail adrese zvaničnog administratora domena exitfest.org, nego je stigla sa neke potpuno nove e-mail adrese, sa koje zvaničan administrator domena exitfest.org nikada nije komunicirao sa provajderom tuženog II-reda niti je sa te adrese administrator domena bilo kada pokrenuo-inicirao bilo kakav retransfer.

DOKAZ: Nesprono, saslušanje tuženog II-reda, Dragana Antonića,
eventulano drugi dokazi iz datoteke WHIOIS

Da stvar bude još “jednostavnija”, u poslovanju provajdera prilikom primanja gore navedenih ili sličnih zahteva za transfer u vezi bilo kog domena, provajder je obavezan da takav zahtev uvek autorizuje dodatnim potvrđivanjem zvaničnog administratora domena na koji se zahtev-inicijacija odnosi na taj način što istom upućuje poseban e-mail(pismo) radi potvrđivanja prethodno iniciranog transfera.

(Ovo u praksi izgleda tako, da provajder nakon primanja određenog zahteva za transfer, iako takav zahtev sadrži odgovarajuću šifru i isti zahtev stiže sa e-mail adrese zvaničnog administratora(što konkretnom prilikom nije bio slučaj) provajder ipak upućuje e-mail zvaničnom administratoru domena na njegovu zvaničnu prijavljenu e-mail adresu, sa kojim e-mailom ga informiše da je određeni transfer iniciran i kojim e-mailom provajder traži od administratora domena da takvu inicijaciju za transfer potvrdi.)

Nadalje, a opet radi omogućavanja što pravilnijeg i što potpunijeg utvrđivanja činjeničnog stanja, moramo napomenuti da razlog zašto je navedeni nelegalni zahtev za transfer vlasnika predmetnog domena imao odgovarajuću šifru leži u činjenici, što je zvaničan administrator domena exitfest.org navedenu šifru jednom saopštio tuženom V-reda kada je administrator bio odsutan i iz objektivnih razloga sprečen, a neke korekcije na domenu su morale izvršiti. Tuženi V-reda je zloupotrebom, nesavesno i prevarno naveo šifru (koju je ranije dobio od administratora domena) u zahtevu za transfer vlasnika domena exitfest.org. sa tužioca na tuženog IV-reda.

DOKAZ: Saslušanje tuženog V-reda

Na kraju, ali ne i najmanje važno, tuženi IV-reda, iako nelegalno stekavši domen exitfest.org, posle kratkog vremena izvršio je transfer vlasnika domena na tuženog I-reda, čiji je predsednik tuženi III-reda. Nakon ove promene vrši se transfer hostovanja domena sa provajdera tuženog II-reda na provajder tuženog VI-reda a na kojem provajderu se i hostoje predmetni domen i u momentu podnošenja ove tužbe.

Imajući u vidu činjenicu da se domen exitfest.org posećuje od strane hiljadama korisnika interneta (npr. celokupna predprodaja karata za inostrane goste za festival EXIT 06 vršila se isključivo preko ovog domena), tužilac je trpeo i trpi nenadoknadivu štetu, koju sada, prilikom podnošenja tužbe procenjuje na ukupan znos od 40.000.000,00 dinara.

Tužilac, već sada nagoveštava da će u toku postupka odrediti relevantne stručnjake-veštake nakon čijih nalaza i mišljenja će uskladiti svoj ovako postavljen tužbeni zahtev.

Summa summarum, tužilac predlaže da postupajući sud zakaže ročište za glavnu rapravu, sprovede parnični postupak, te nakon izvđenja svih dokaza donese sledeću

PRESUDU

Tužbeni zahtev tužioca USVAJA SE U CELOSTI KAO OSNOVAN.

UTVRĐUJE SE da je transfer registranta domena exitfest.org sa tužioca DUŠANA KOVAČEVIĆA na tuženog IV-reda BOJANA BOŠKOVIĆA, NIŠTAV.

UTVRĐUJE SE da je transfer registranta domena exitfest.org sa tužioca DUŠANA KOVAČEVIĆA na tuženog I-reda Udruženje građana EXIT, NIŠTAV.

OBAVEZUJE SE tuženi tuženi VI-reda DOO NEOBEE.NET da izvrši promenu vlasnika domena exitfest.org sa tuženog I-reda Udruženja građana EXIT na tužioca DUŠANA KOVAČEVIĆA.

OBAVEZUJU SE tuženi I-V –reda da tuženom solidarno isplate tužiocu iznos od 40.000.000,00 dinara na ime materijlane štete, sa zakonskom zateznom kamatom počev od dana 9.11.2006.godine.

OBAVEZUJU SE tuženi da tužiocu solidarno nadokande sve troškove ovog parničnog postupka sa zakonskom zateznom kamatom počev od presuđenja pa do isplate, SVE ovo u roku od 15 dana pod pretnjom izvršenja.

U Novom Sadu, 9.11.2006. godine Tužilac-putem punomoćnika:

[DusanKov]

Originalno napisao Aleksandar Marković

Jedan od osnivača Exit-a Dušan Kovačević podneo je tužbu protiv Exit,

TUZBA NIJE PODIGNUTA PROTIV EXIT-a, JER TAKVA ORGANIZACIJA NE POSTOJI. EXIT JE BREND KOJI KORISTI VISE ORGANIZACIJA I FIRMI. JEDAN OD CILJEVA TUZBI JE DA SE TA SITUACIJA KONACNO RAZRESI!

[DusanKov]

SALJEM PRIMER VEOMA SLICNOG PRIMERA IZ SAD KOJI JE UTRO PUT INTERNET ZAKONODASTVU U TOJ ZEMLJI. NAKON TOG SLUCAJA, DOMEN JE KONACNO PROGLASEN ZA IMOVINU/PROPERTY!

U PITANJU JE KRADJA SAJTA WWW.SEX.COM. ORIGINALNOM VLASNIKU JE TREBALO 4 GODINE DA ISTERA PRAVDU, ALI JE NA KRAJU DOBIO, DOK JE LOPOV U BEKSTVU.

KRADJA SE DESILA 1996, TUZBA JE POKRENUTA 1998, A PRESUDA DONESENA 2000TE!

Sex.com conman continues ludicrous legal fight
Now appealing to US Supreme CourtBy Kieren McCarthy → More by this author
Published Thursday 1st May 2003 20:18 GMT
Get The Register's new weekly newsletter for senior IT managers delivered to your inbox, click here.
The conman found guilty of fraudulently stealing domain Sex. com and ordered to pay $65 million in damages has continued his farcical legal fight with a plea to the US Supreme Court.

Stephen Michael Cohen, filed the appeal on Wednesday after both a San Francisco court in 2001 and the US Court of Appeals last year rejected his arguments. In the latter case, the three judges dismissed all grounds because Cohen had fled the country (with his ill-gotten gains secreted in various offshore accounts) and was a fugitive from justice in Mexico.


The Supreme Court appeal has a snowball's chance in hell of even being considered by the Supreme Court but then Mr Cohen's previous legal fillings have been as unconventional in their logic as they have been creative with the facts. It is clear that Mr Cohen sees the lengthy delay in final judgement as a victory in itself, something that led the Appeal Court judges to view his purchase of significant amounts of American justice as an "egregious abuse of the litigation process".

Unfortunately, no one save Mr Cohen and his current lawyer has seen the fertile arguments set forth in the most recent appeal, so by way of background, we present some of the highlights of his time in the legal spotlight.

From thief to slave

Mr Cohen has never disputed that shortly after his release from jail for the third time in 1995, he forged a document purporting to authorise the handing over of Sex.com from Mr Gary Kremen to himself. This, he happily admits, was sent to Internet company VeriSign in order to defraud them into handing him control of the Sex.com domain. This Verisign duly did without any form of checking.

However, when asked to hand over the domain (which makes $500,000 a month simply selling space to other companies), Mr Cohen revealed that he owned the trademark Sex.com and so was entitled to hold onto the domain. Aside from claiming that he had owned Sex.com before the domain name system had even come into existence, Mr Cohen also provided the court with printouts of "Bulletin Board" Internet pages where he had used the Sex.com name prior to 1995 - the year when Mr Kremen registered it for the very first time. Sadly, they were fabricated.

When told to hand over the domain and $65 million to Mr Kremen in April 2001, Mr Cohen appealed. In the meantime, efforts by the court to assess his businesses and assets in order to pay the damages were hindered by Mr Cohen's insistence that answering questions would violate the laws of another country and so he couldn't do it.

Illegally moving funds abroad, Mr Cohen provided a false audit of one of his companies and no audits at all for the others he had started, owned and ran yet claimed no control over. Failing to turn up in court, Mr Cohen found himself the subject of an arrest order. In filings, however, he revealed that he could not attend court because he was under arrest in Mexico for failing to pay creditors. The court-appointed receiver disputed this.

And the bathroom sink

One of his companies, Montano Properties, which owned two big ranches, filed for bankruptcy in September 2001, but it was dismissed as fraudulent and was handed over to Mr Kremen in part-payment. Unfortunately for Mr Kremen, when he arrived to take control of the properties everything including the wiring and plumbing had been removed by truck.

In January 2002, Mr Cohen appealed to the court to lift the injunction against him. Since the court had not allowed him to contest the injunction (it wasn't his fault he was "under arrest" in Mexico at the time), it was not valid.

What's more, Mr Kremen had been acting illegally by chasing money and so had undermined the court decision against Cohen. Presumably this illegality stemmed from the fact that the injunction was "illegal" in the first place. Kremen, Mr Cohen's court filings explained "has duped this court into believing that their [sic] exists numerous hidden bank accounts and assets hidden outside the United States" belonging to Cohen.

It seems that despite having run the Sex.com site for six years, Mr Cohen was bankrupt. Despite Mr Kremen issuing over 500 subpoenas, there is "not a nimbus [sic] of proof that their [sic] exists any such accounts, or assets located anywhere on this earth". Mr Cohen advised the court to "engage in vigilance" so it "will not be bamboozled again" by Kremen.

In fact, Mr Cohen was so poor that he was unable even to buy loo paper, the filings stated. The injunction was a "death warrant" and against his constitutional rights. But that wasn't all - Mr Cohen had some powerful legal principles to raise.

Blind, rubber-stamping courts

The court for example had no power to decide in this matter, only a grand jury would have binding status on Mr Cohen. The court had also violated the 13th amendment of the United States Constitution. How? By forcing him into the status of slavery. He was a slave to Kremen and so therefore the injunction was not enforceable. With this logic, there is no doubt that "one could only assume that this court never read the injunction it signed".

You think that's the end of it?

You won't be surprised to hear that the court didn't feel Mr Cohen had made a strong enough case the overturn the injunction. However, Mr Cohen has several aces up his sleeve. In September 2002, the court was lucky enough to receive another lesson in law. Because Mr Kremen had registered the domain in 1995 not using his real name but the name of a company he was trading under, it was impossible for Mr Kremen to sue him and so the entire case from day one would have to be thrown out. Mr Cohen would, of course, regain possession of the name in the meantime.

It had also taken Gary Kremen eight months to complain about the hijacking off the Sex .com domain and a lawsuit was only filed years later. In the meantime, Mr Cohen had invested "hundreds of thousands of dollars" in the developing the site. A review of the site of the time, which consisted solely of banners to other sites would appear to reveal that Mr Cohen was badly stung by Internet consultancies during this period.

By making decisions while Mr Cohen was not able to attend court, it had violated his rights (we've been here before) and so therefore any judgement would have to be struck out. Not only that but Mr Kremen's subsequent $50,000 reward for anyone that brought Mr Cohen back into the country had put Mr Cohen in fear of his life. How could he now return to the US when his own life was at risk if he did? His rights had been violated again.

Not only that but because of the law-abiding citizen he is, Mr Cohen would not leave Mexico because it would be breaking that country's law to do so. Why can't the US courts see that?

In conclusion, Mr Cohen insisted the court reconsider its actions so it could "establish a consistent approach to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine in accord with governing case law and the recognition that jurisdictional considerations and international policy play a dominant role in the calculus". Mr Kremen is said to be considering posting a $50,000 reward for anyone that can work out that is supposed to mean. ®

[DusanKov]

I JOS JEDAN CLANAK NA TU TEMU KOJI GOVORI O DOMENU KAO IMOVINI!

To Fight Domain Name Theft: Sex.com Gives Birth to a New Property Right
May 06, 2004 | Inside: Legal Issues
Posted by Rod Dixon Comments | Print | Email


For those who are Star Wars fans, the following scene from the prequel, Attack of the Clones, will be easy to recall: a young and misinformed Jedi, known as Obi-waan Kenobi, opines about how an army of clones had been able to snatch a victory from imminent defeat. Yoda, a Jedi Master and virtual fountain of wisdom, immediately gushes forth an important correction: "Victory? Victory you say? Master Obi-waan, not victory." Yoda explains that winning a battle is not a victory, if the win merely signals that the war has just begun. Yoda's apparent perception seems particularly apt for the precedent setting federal court opinion involving the sex.com domain name. Notwithstanding that individual domain name registrants may seek comfort in the victory obtained from the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Kremen v. Cohen, that decision merely signals a beginning—not an end—to the controversy over the proper legal framework for resolving domain name theft.

In Kremen v. Cohen, a federal appellate court accepted the view that a domain name is "property" and that domain name registrars should be held liable for the conduct of third-parties when a third-party interferes with the property interests of a domain name registrant by stealing their domain name. What is remarkable about the decision is its far-reaching implications and its potentially severe impact upon domain name registrars. Undoubtedly, there have been numerous claims that registrars were pilfering from individual domain name holders with impunity, and that domain name holders were clamoring for a legal remedy. In those instances, holding registrars directly liable for their illicit conduct is clearly sensible. The question remains, however, whether the court's ruling regarding registrar liability for the conduct of a third-party is a prudent and sensible response to domain name theft? I am doubtful.

Stephen Cohen stole Gary Kremen's domain name, sex. com, simply by submitting a fake transfer letter to domain registrar Network Solutions (now owned by Verisign) with a forged signature. Since it was once fairly common for ICANN-approved registrars to respond to domain name transfers in an automaton-like fashion, Stephen Cohen, a convicted felon, was able to exploit the domain transfer process, con Network Solutions, and ostensibly steal the domain name. Cohen pretended to be authorized by Kremen to order Network Solutions to transfer the name of the registrant of the sex.com domain name over to his company. Cohen used a phony letter from a non-existent executive at Kremen's company, Online Classifieds, authorizing transfer of Sex.com to Cohen. The letter was written and signed by a "Sharon Dimmick," identified as the president of Online Classifieds. The letter is addressed to Stephen Cohen, and states that Online Classifieds is relinquishing the rights of sex.com to Cohen. The letter contained an instruction from the non-existent Dimmick to Cohen: "Because we do not have a direct connection to the Internet, we request that you notify the internet registration on our behalf, to delete our domain name sex.com. Further, we have no objections to your use of the domain name sex.com and this letter shall serve as our authorization to the internet registration to transfer sex.com to your corporation." The Ninth Circuit considered the badly faked letter as well as the simple ease with which the transfer was effected as indicative of the fact that Kremen could not have been well-served by Network Solutions. This finding of the court seems unassailable.

Even so, that domain name registrars should be held liable for the wrongful conduct committed by third parties begs the question of to whom liability is, in actual fact, being extended. In practice, the chain of domain name registration extends from ICANN-accredited registrars to domain name resellers, web hosting service providers, web programmers, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and a number of other service providers and professionals; each ostensibly may provide domain name registration services for any given individual domain name registrant or client. The Ninth circuit opinion is broad enough to sweep within its reach anyone in the chain of management of the so-called domain name property. The "registrar" need not be at fault or lacking in a clearly stated duty of care; to be found liable, the service provider need only supply the means or be the engine of a domain name transfer that happens to turn out to be improper. Even mistake may not be a defense to liability.

As the Court noted, "[w]e must, of course, take the broader view, but there is nothing unfair about holding a company responsible for giving away someone else's property even if it was not at fault. Cohen is obviously the guilty party here, and the one who should in all fairness pay for his theft. But he's skipped the country, and his money is stashed in some offshore bank account. Unless Kremen's luck with his bounty hunters improves, Cohen is out of the picture. The question becomes whether Network Solutions should be open to liability for its decision to hand over Kremen's domain name. Negligent or not, it was Network Solutions that gave away Kremen's property." Oddly, the court seems to adopt a legal theory that cuts both ways: that Cohen stole the domain name and that the registrar "gave away" the property are both regarded as factors supporting the court's ultimate decision despite the obvious consideration that both propositions cannot be true. In this manner, the court seems to extend strict liability to the "registrar" (or, likely, any service provider who transfers the domain name registration) without reflection upon what safeguards a registrar may rely upon to avoid the risk of liability.

What is more, broad registrar liability for the wrongful conduct of others may create perverse incentives in the marketplace of domain name registration: the cost of doing business as a domain name registrar has increased as a result of the potential liability (and insurance) due to this new liability, and as the costs of providing registration services increase, the cost of registering domain names will increase once those costs are passed on to registrants. Quite possibly, if domain name litigation increases due to this new property right, some registrars may drop out of the registrar space and competition could suffer just as prices increase. Notwithstanding that the scope of liability is virtually unbounded and indefinite as identified by the court, the best way to approach the question of registrar liability may be to consider the Ninth Circuit's determination that a domain name is "property;" certainly, for the Ninth Circuit, the holding in the decision hinged significantly on the contour of the property interest the court found existing in a domain name.

The sense in which a domain name is property, according to the appeals court, depends upon the application of a three-part test: "[f]irst, there must be an interest capable of precise definition; second, it must be capable of exclusive possession or control; and third, the putative owner must have established a legitimate claim to exclusivity."

In applying this test, the Court concluded that domain names satisfy each criterion. Reasoning that like a share of corporate stock or a plot of land, a domain name is a well-defined interest; the court urged that someone who registers a domain name decides where on the Internet those who invoke that particular name—whether by typing it into their web browsers, by following a hyperlink, or by other means—are sent. Ownership is exclusive in the sense that the registrant alone makes the decision to register the name. And, the court was persuaded that registrants have a legitimate claim to exclusivity. Thus, concluding that Kremen had an intangible property right in his domain name on the basis of the three-part test, the Ninth Circuit accepted the argument that a registrar improperly transferring a domain name—even if mistakenly so—would be liable for wrongfully disposing of the property right to the detriment of the proper domain name registrant.

Without explanation, the court's analysis conflates registration services with the alphanumeric designation of a domain name; in doing so, the court undermines any attempt it may take in considering the appropriateness of competing legal theories that may prove helpful in setting forth the legal contour of a domain name. To wit, certain jurisdictions have drawn a distinction between the right to use a unique telephone number and the right to receive telephone service. The Ninth Circuit did not create a new federal common law of property for domain names. This is especially noteworthy since doing so would contravene the long-established role that the States have played in creating property interests and in determining the definition and scope of property. Even so, the court was reluctant to consider alternative legal theory for defining the contours of a domain name. A domain name, for instance, may be a contract the owner has with the domain name registrar—the company that provided the name. There are federal cases that expressly have found that a domain name is not tangible real property, and at least one state Supreme Court held that domain names should be considered services rather than property. The Supreme Court of Virginia concluded that domain names are, therefore, not proper subjects for garnishment. Admittedly, domain names seem to have features of both tangible and intangible property. What is more, the scope of a property interest in a domain name may vary widely in the United States since States create and define property interests, not federal courts. More to the point, State court litigation would hardly serve the interests of uniformity.

Three years ago I wrote a column asking what standard of care registrars (and, in some cases, registries) owe domain name registrants in thwarting attempts of domain name theft. Or, what happens when a requester who requests a domain name transfer and the registrar refuses to do so because of suspected fraud? The domain name space seemed poised to impose a duty of care upon registrars in handling domain name transfers, but most discussions on the topic focused upon registrants and the data they provided to registrars rather than directly upon duties and obligations of registrars. There was little or no guidance on what safe harbors there should be for registrars who complied with ICANN (the Internet's domain name regulator) mandated fraud detection directives. In part, I viewed this as a question of Internet governance; ICANN was given short shrift by the Ninth Circuit. Would a private sector scheme of arbitration prove relevant and more responsive than the Ninth Circuit's choice?

ICANN was not around in 1995, but, today, ICANN has sufficient experience in managing the domain name space to insist that registrars install systems and procedures in place to avoid domain name theft. ICANN could also withdraw registrar-accreditation from registrars that have an identifiably significant number of illicit domain name transfers. ICANN has set-up contractual relations with domain name registries and registrars that could be the means to ensure that these entities have adequate safeguards against domain name theft. In doing so, ICANN could attempt to establish DNS policies aimed at benefiting all domain name holders while the courts could be a last resort under a careful and narrowly drawn standard of liability.

[oliver]

40 megadinara... lele. pola kiloevra!

[dee]

i unucima ce bit drago

[noviKorisnik]

Znao sam ... dragetz je kriv za sve ... zato i ne mogu da ga nalovim :-)

btw. - ako u tužbi jasno stoji da je prvooptuženi Udruženje građana Exit, čemu onda tvrdnja da ta organizacija ne postoji?

[Goran Aničić]

Šta reći, borba "vučje družine" oko ne malog plena, i gerilski marketing D. Kovačevića pošto je istu poruku istovremeno poslao na hiljade adresa