The Gray Blog

In Office Depot v. Zuccarini the Ninth Circuit has affirmed a district court decision ruling that a creditor may levy against a domain name in the jurisdiction where the domain name registry is located.  This decision is significant in that it verifies that domain names are property subject to levy.  By ruling that jurisdiction arises were the registry is located, this decision also opens the door to enforcement against foreign owned domains housed in US registries.

At trial, Office Depot obtained a judgment and assigned it to DS Holdings in 2000.  DS went after 190 domain names that were registered in Zuccarini’s name. DS sought to have a receiver appointed over the domain names. The district court granted DS’s request to have the receiver appointed, and Zuccarini appealed. Zuccarini’s appeal focused on whether it was proper to appoint the receiver in the Northern District of California, since the domain names were not necessarily “located” there.

The court of appeals applied California law to the question of whether domains constituted property.  The Court ruled that domains were intangible property subject to seizure.  Then, taking guidance from elements of the Anti-Cybersquating Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), although ACPA was not implicated in the case, the Court found in rem jurisdiction where the “registrar, registry, or other domain name authority” is located.

For a more thorough review of the decision see Eric Goldman’s Blog.