+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Domain Seizures - Sealed Court Filing

  1. #1
    Top Contributor crabfoot is a Premium Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    East Yorkshire
    Posts
    2,191
    Blog Entries
    8
    Thanks
    489
    Thanked 1,991 Times in 1,038 Posts
    Rep Power
    56

    Domain Seizures - Sealed Court Filing

    Webmaster World has a front page thread on this, but it is hard to learn what it is all about.

    After some searching, I found something informative -
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...idea-why.shtml

    Looks like this approach might be a danger to any unused domain ...

  2. #2
    Top Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    919
    Thanks
    2,027
    Thanked 1,476 Times in 709 Posts
    Rep Power
    42
    Craig Sir, This problem is part of an asset seizure case. All domains were (initially at the start of the case) -supposedly- owned by a single individual and were part of a case filed November 26, 2013. The case is Chan Luu Inc. v. Online Growth, LLC et al

    There is a useful discussion at DomainSherpa.com titled Domain Seizures and the discussion provides insight into what has happened. The Internet Commerce Association appears to be looking into this in a post titled Undue Process

    From my perspective as a domainer, this may be a situation where the court's trustee for these assets did not comprehend the attributes of property ostensibly a part of this case. As a result, it looks like some of the names held were not renewed properly, expired and eventually dropped prior to the case going to trial. This lack of comprehension (by the courts) for the intangible asset type also suggests some of the domain names may even have been sold or transferred prior to filing of this case. It seems proper research into ownership was not done.

    From the explanation I heard for -some- of the assets in question, domainers drop caught some of the defendant's names as they expired (as occurs with any valuable domain name). This is conjecture from reading prior posts, but seems logical. In any event, the names appear to be a part of a single case where assets were seized. The court issued a seizure order for assets (they believed were) held by a defendant, but some of the property in question was not (or no longer) owned by the defendant.

    This seizure order should not have been honored by registrars until historical asset ownership and current ownership had been ascertained by the court.
    Last edited by KenW3; 18 October 2014 at 11:31 pm.

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 21 July 2014, 7:14 am
  2. Top EU court rules that Google has to remove irrelevant links...
    By Kay in forum SEO & Search Engine News
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 18 May 2014, 6:14 am
  3. Comments in Facebook are ads - Australian court says
    By Clinton in forum Due Diligence and Gotchas!
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 14 August 2012, 12:02 pm
  4. Oracle and Google ordered by court to disclose paid bloggers
    By Clinton in forum General & Miscellaneous
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 9 August 2012, 2:31 pm
  5. Embedding videos is now not a crime, court says
    By Clinton in forum Business Management and Administration
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 6 August 2012, 10:57 am

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts