Domain Name Handbook
DNS NewsDomain DisputesU.S. PolicyICANNMailing ListsArchivesTable of ContentsReviews & CitesViewpointAcknowledgmentGlossarySpecial FeaturesBooklist

Below are links to recent legal documents involving administration of the domain name system. See also our Domain Disputes for summaries of and links to individual domain name dispute litigation not already chronicled in The Domain Name Handbook.
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.
-- Henry David Thoreau

AFTERNIC.COM v. ICANN

ARNOLD BEVERLY, dba PSB, v. NSI, et. al.

ATLANTIC ROOT NETWORK, INC, v. ICANN (NTIA Petition)

AU DOMAIN ADMINISTRATION LIMITED v DOMAIN NAMES AUSTRALIA, ET. AL.

AUERBACH v. ICANN

AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION v. JERRY SUMPTON, et. al.

BIRD v. DOTSTER, AFTERNIC, ET. AL.

BORD v. BANCO DE CHILE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

BULKREGISTER v. VERISIGN, GODADDY v. VERISIGN

CLASS ACTION (SMILEY) v, NEULEVEL, REGISTRARS - .BIZ LOTTERY

CLASS ACTION: v. NSI

CLASS ACTION: WILLIAM THOMAS, et. al. v. NSI and NSF

DOMAIN JUSTICE COALITION v. ICANN

ECONOMIC SOLUTIONS, INC. v. ICANN

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. ONTARIO, INC., dba NATIONAL DOMAIN NAME REGISTRY, ELECTRONIC DOMAIN NAME MONITORING and CORPORATE DOMAIN NAME MONITORING, and DARREN J. MORGENSTERN

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. TLD NETWORK LTD, QUANTUM MANAGEMENT U.S., INC., QUANTUM MANAGEMENT (GB) LTD, TBS INDUSTRIES LTD, TLD NETWORKS and THOMAS GOOLNIK

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. ZUCCARINI

IMAGE ONLINE DESIGN v. CORE

ISLAND ONLINE CORP. v. NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.

NATIONAL A-1 ADVERTISING and LYNN HABERSTROH v. NSI

NEULEVEL v. AMAZON.COM

ONTARIO LTD, dba DOMAIN REGISTRY v. TUCOWS, INC.

OPPEDAHL & LARSON v. NSI

OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION v. NSI

PANAVISION INTERNATIONAL L.P. v. DENNIS TOEPPEN, NSI

PGMEDIA INC. dba NAME.SPACE v. NSI and NSF

POPULAR ENTERPRISES, LLC v.VERISIGN, INC.

REGISTER.COM v.DOMAIN REGISTRY OF CANADA

REGISTER.COM v. VERIO, INC.

REGLAND, INC. v. ICANN

SEVEN WORDS LLC v. NETWORK SOLUTIONS

VERISIGN v. ICANN

ZURAKOV v. REGISTER.COM

AFTERNIC.COM v. ICANN

In June of 2000, domain name reseller Afternic.com filed suit against ICANN in Manhattan federal court after its application to become an accredited domain name registrar was rejected. ICANN refused to act on the application, citing concerns about the peddling of trademark domain namesin the secondary marketplace. ICANN's decision thus holds Afternic.com to a higher standard than its accredited registrars who originally registered the domain names offered for sale. Afternic subsequently dropped the lawsuit.

ARNOLD BEVERLY, dba PSB, v. NSI

  • Arnold Beverly, d.b.a. PSB, v. Network Solutions, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, Order, U.S. District Court, Northern District California, C-98-0337-VRW

ATLANTIC ROOT NETWORK, INC. v. ICANN

The Atlantic Root Network, Inc., a Virginia ISP, complained to the Department of Commerce that ICANN overstepped its authority when it approved ,BIZ as a new top level domain in November 2000. Atlantic Root says it has been registering .BIZ addresses since May of 2000.

.AU DOMAIN ADMINISTRATION LIMITED v DOMAIN NAMES AUSTRALIA and PAUL CHESLEY RAFFERTY

The administrator of the .AU Australian ccTLD received court approval to proceed with its class action suit against Domain Names Australia, a company AuDA alleges has engaged in misleading domain name marketing.
  • .AU Domain Administration Limited v Domain Names Australia Pty Ltd, Federal Court of Australia [2003] FCA 1106, Reasons for Judgment (October 10, 2003)

AUERBACH v. ICANN

Karl Auerbach, the elected member of the ICANN board representing North America, filed suit against the non-profit corporation on March 18, 2001 to force ICANN management to grant him reasonable access to corporate records. ICANN's bylaws provide that: "Every Director shall have the right at any reasonable time to inspect and copy all books, records and documents of every kind, and to inspect the physical properties of the Corporation," but ICANN management imposed a new policy requiring board members to sign a non-disclosure agreement prior to providing access to the documents. On May 21, 2002, the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a motion on behalf of Auerbach requesting the court grant him immediate access to corporate records that ICANN management has denied him for 1.5 years. California Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janavs ruled that ICANN has until August 2 to turn over its financial documents to Auerbach,

AVERY DENNISON CORP. v. SUMPTON, et. al.

Avery Dennison Corp., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v. Jerry Sumpton, d/b/a Free View Listings Ltd., Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellants, U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Opinion (August 23, 1999)
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the injunction against Sumpton, holding that the widespread use "Avery" and "Dennison" makes it unlikely that either can be considered a famous mark eligible for the dilution cause of action.

BIRD v. DOTSTER, AFTERNIC, et. al.

Darrell J. Bird, an Ohio citizen, brought this lawsuit pro se, alleging violations of federal copyright and infringement of his mark "Financia" involving the defendants' activities in connection with the registration and attempted sale of EFINANCIA.COM. Defendant Marshall Parsons registered and parked the domain with Dotster. Afternic, a domain name auctioneer. listed EFINANCIA.COM as available for sale. On May 21, 2002, the US 6th Circuit Court of Appeal yesterday reversed a lower court decision in finding that the Ohio court could assert jurisdiction over the registrar Dotster since the company accepted business from thousands of state residents on its site. The court then affirmed the lower court's dismissal dismissal of trademark infringement, unfair competition, ACPA, and copyright infringement claims. The court held that simply posting a domain name on an Internet auction site is insufficient to establish the commercial use of a trademark. Specifically, it the federal judge wrote, "Afternic provides a virtual auction site, but the fact that its services might be used for trafficking in a domain name does not render it liable for trafficking."
  • Darrell J. Bird, v. Marshall Parsons, Stephen Vincent, George DeCarlo, Dotster, Inc., and Afternic.com, Inc., Opinion, US District Court 6d, Southern District of Ohio at Dayton. No. 00-4556 (21-May-02), 2002 FED App. 0177P (6th Cir.)

BORD v. BANCO DE CHILE, U.S. DEPARTMENT of COMMERCE

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, Plaintiff registered BANCOCHILE.COM but was subsequently challenged under the UDRPby the Banco de Chile. A WIPO arbitration panel found that the registration infringed upon the bank's trademark rights and ordered the name transfered to Banco de Chile. Plaintiff filed suit seeking declaratory relief and three counts against DOC, seeking to enjoin continued use of the UDRP. The court found that the Plaintiff lacks standing to sue the DOC, that Plaintiff cannot show connection between the DOC and the promulgation of the UDRP."The DOC did not develop the UDRP, nor is the DOC a party to any contract which requires the UDRP."
  • Eric S. Bord v. Banco de Chile and U.S. Department of Commerce, Civil Action 01-1360-A. Memorandum Opinion by Judge Claude Hilton (May 15, 2002)
BULKREGISTER v. VERISIGN, GODADDY v. VERISIGN
 
BulkRegister, a Baltimore domain-name registrar, sued VeriSign in Maryland federal court to stop a direct-marketing campaign that allegedly poached its customers. On May 13, 2002, the federal court judge found that VeriSign engaged in deceptive advertising and granted a prelIminary injunction to BulkRegister which immediately ordered VeriSign to halt the marketing campaign . In June 2002, Go Daddy Software, Inc., also filed suit against VeriSign, alleging false and deceptive advertising, interference with customer relationships, misappropriation of trade secrets, and consumer fraud. Go Daddy seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent VeriSign from engaging in further deceptive advertising. VeriSign agreed to stop sending the notices, but GoDaddy is seeking refunds for customers who transferred their registrations as a result of the mailings. Terms of the settlement between BulkRegister and Verisign in August 2002 are confidental, but BulkRegister will reimbure diistributors and customers who were switched to VeriSign, will be transferred back and receive a free one-year extension on their registration.
CLASS ACTION (Smiley): Violations of Business & Professions Code §17200 et seq.
 
David Scott Smiley, dba Smiley Productions LLC, Skyscraper Productions LLC
v. Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers, Neulevel Inc.,
Abacus America Inc., Alldomains.com, Blueberry Hill Communications Inc.,
Bulkregister.com Inc., Catalog.com Inc., Domain Registration Services, Inc.,
Dotster Inc., Emarkmonitor Inc., Enom Inc., Go Dadday Software Inc.,
Intercosmos Media Group Inc., Namesecure Inc., Network Solutions Inc.,
Parava Networks Inc., Register.com Inc., The Registry At Info Avenue,
Verisign Inc., Domain Bank Inc., Cydian Technologies LLC, #1 Domain Names
International Inc., 007Names, Inc., 1 Enameco, 123 Registration, Inc., 21
Company, 4Domains.com, BB Online UK Ltd., Core Internet Council of
Registrars, Corporate Domains, Inc., CSL Computer Services Langenbach,
Cybersearch-US, Inc., Direct Information PVT Ltd., Diversity Network
Services, Domain-It! Inc., Domaininfo, Domainnameregistration.com,
Domainpeople, Inc., Dotbizlottery.com, Edifax Internet Services LLC,
Firstdomain.net, G+D International LLC, Gal Communications, Ltd, I.D.R.
Internet Domain Registry, Internet Domain Registrars,
Internetregistration.com LLC, Markmonitor, Melbourne It Limited, Nameengine
Inc., Namescout.com Corp., NDN Registry, Netbenefit, Netlogin, Netpia.com
Inc., Nominalia Internet SL, Onlinenic, Inc, Procurement Services Inc.,
Rapid Host, Reserveme.com, Signdomain.com, Spy Productions.com, The Nameit
Corp., Tucows Inc., Virtual Internet PLC, Web Express Inc., Web Costasol,
Webcity Australia Pty Ltd., Worldwidemedia.com
 
This class action lawsuit was filed against NeuLevel, Inc. and its affiliates. Lawsuit alleged that the .BIZ registration process is an unfair and deceptive trade practice in violation of section 17200 of the California Business & Professions Code because it is running as an illegal lottery. ICANN is also named as a defendant. The Court ordered a preliminary injunction against Neulevel for 53,000 applicants (those who submitted multiple applications for the same name. NeuLevel was ordered to deposit $3M into an escrow account with the court towards refunding payment of the 1.5M applications involved. Settlement of the lawsuit in December 2002 affects about 25,000 applicants of .BIZ domain names.

CLASS ACTION v. NSI

Filed in U,S, District Court in San Francisco, the lawsuit targets Network Solutions for allegedly failing to observe standards that restrict .COM, .NET and .ORG to commercial companies, ISPs, and nonprofits, respectively. That is a breach of Network Solutions' contract with the government, the suit says.

CLASS ACTION v. NSI and NSF

  • U.S. Supreme Court Affirms Network Solutions' Role by Denying Thomas Petition (Stockpoint - January 18, 2000)
  • William Thomas, et. al. v. Network Solutions, Inc. and National Science Foundation, Appeal, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 98-5502 (May 14, 1999)
  • William Thomas, et. al. v. Network Solutions, Inc. and National Science Foundation, Memorandum Opinion, U.S. District of Columbia, 97 Civ 2412 (April 3, 1998)
  • Memorandum Opinion (February 2, 1998)
  • Order for Preliminary Injunction (February 1, 1998)
  • William Thomas; Myhouse Communications, Russell Braen, Managing Partner; Thomas J. Howell; Litigation Communications Inc; Sartori Associates and Delta Micro Systems,Inc., et. al. for themselves and as representatives of all commercial registrants on the Internet v. Network Solutions, Inc. and National Science Foundation, Class Action, U.S. District of Columbia, 97 Civ 2412 (January 16, 1998)

DOMAIN JUSTICE COALITION v. ICANN

A coalition of 23 registrars filed a lawsuit against ICANN claiming its approval of the proposed wait listing service violates its terms of agreement with registrars and gives VeriSign an unfair advantage. The District Court denied the request for a preliminary injunction, opining that although the WLS will see VeriSign gain control of all lapsed domains, it doesn't actually compel other registrars to do anything and the WLS service would open up the market for all registrars to offer a domain reservation service.

ECONOMIC SOLUTIONS, INC., v. ICANN

ESI entered into a contract with the Central American country of Belize to commercially market domain names ending with .BZ., its ccTLD. Aware that ICANN's was considering the introduction of new TLDs, ESI sought a temporary restraining order enjoining ICANN from establishing a new generic TLD of .BIZ or .EBIZ, or any other designation which would be confusingly similar to the .BZ TLD. ICANN represented to the court that it "has no legal authority presently to authorize the issuance of new TLDs or to change the delegation of those TLDs. . . but the legal authority to make that decision rests with the Department of Commerce." ICANN further represented that before any such recommendation would be made, ICANN would have to successfully negotiate complex agreements with the selected applicant. " The TRO was denied.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. NETWORK SOLUTIONS, dba VERISIGN

The Federal Trade Commission charged NSI with deceptive marketing practices which unlawfully tricked consumers into transferring their domain name registrations to the company. NSI settled with the FTC, agreeing to be permanently barred from misrepresenting that a consumer's domain name is about to expire or that the transfer of a domain name is actually a renewal. The order also requires the defendant to pay consumer redress pursuant to the terms of a previously settled class action lawsuit.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. 1268957 ONTARIO INC. dba NATIONAL DOMAIN NAME REGISTRY, et. al.

A Canadian company and its principal agreed to pay $375,000 in consumer redress to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that their domain name sales scheme violated federal laws. The FTC won a temporary restraining order against the company that mislead Internet users into registering domain names to protect them from cybersquatting attempts. The company, known as National Domain Name Registry, Electronic Domain Name Monitoring and Corporate Domain Name Monitoring, faxed domain registrants of domain names telling them that others had attempted to register the .NET version of their domain name and a $70 fee would remedy the concern. The scam net the company $1.7M from 27,000 respondents.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. TLD NETWORK LTD, QUANTUM MANAGEMENT U.S., INC., et. al.

The Federal Trade Commission reached a settlement with five defendants accused of selling phony domain names. Defendants advertised domains intop level domains such as .USA, .SEX and .BRIT, which are not part of the authorized root server system and will not work on the Internet without special computer configuration. Under the settlement, the Defendants must disclose the limitations of the domain names, are prohibited from distiributing their customer list, and must provide $300,000 toward redress for consumers worldwide.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. ZUCCARINI

The Federal Trade Commission won a temporary injunction against John Zuccarini, who diverted and redirected Internet users to commercial websites displaying ads for online gambling and casinos, sweepstakes, lotteries, psychics, instant credit, or pornography. He was charged with three counts of violating FTC Act §5. The defendant allegedly used 5,500 domain names that were misspellings of popular domain names, transposed or inverted words, terms, or phrases or that were confusingly similar to famous trademarks, service marks, or trade names. Once there, surfers were unable to leave the site due to a programming device called "mousetrapping". On May 24, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ordered Zuccarini to pay $1.9 million to victims of his mousetrapping. The FTC said Zuccarini made $800,000 to $1 million per year by charging the advertisers whose ads popped up. Zuccarini reportedly has lost 53 state and federal suits and some 200 domain names were removed from his control The court order also permanently bars Zuccarini from redirecting Internet users in connection with the advertising, promoting, offering for sale, selling, or providing any goods or services on the WWW. Zuccarini was arrested by federal agents on September 3, 2003, as the first U.S. prosecution of the new Amber Alert legislation that makes it a crime to use a misleading Web address to entice children to pornography. He pleaded guilty in federal court in December 2003 to charges that he used misspellings of well known websites to redirect minors and other unwitting users to pornographic content.

IMAGE ONLINE DESIGN v. CORE

Court dismissed case, holding that the generic top level domain ;.WEB when used in connection with domain name registration services is not a trademark entitled to protection, as it does not identify the source of such services, but rather the type of content which may bexpected to be found on a web site containing the.WEB top level domain name.
  • Image Online Design, Inc. v. Core Association, et al., 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10259 (C.D. Ca., July 21, 2000): Summary
    Court: "Taken as a whole, the Court agrees with the PTO in its conclusion that a TLD and other non-distinctive modifiers of a URL like "http://www" have no trademark significance."

ISLAND ONLINE CORP. V. NSI

Island Online Inc. v. Network Solutions Inc.,99-CV-6848 (DGT) - Island Online Corp., which provides adult content on the Web, wanted to register three "dot-com" domain names that incorporated words commonly considered obscene. It sued in October 1999, after Network Solutions, Inc., refused to register "f---me.com," "f---you.com" and "c---suckers.com." Island Online Inc, argued that Network Solutions' practice of refusing to register obscene domain names deprived it of its right to free speech and due process of law under the U.S. and New York State Constitutions. Network Solutions filed a motion to dismiss the suit, asserting that there was no governmental involvement and no state action which could trigger constitutional protections. Nov. 6, 2000, U.S. District Judge David Trager sided with NSI and the lawsuit was dismissed. The court held that NSI was not a state actor and that an domain name registrar could not be sued for civil rights violations for denying a company domain names that included obscene words.

JOHNSON v. VERISIGN, et. al.

Michael Andrew Johnson v. VeriSign, Inc., Network Solutions, Inc., Douglas L. Wolford, Benjamin R. Turner, Jeffrey W. Johnson, Robert Smith, Complaint and Demand for Legal and Equitable Relief and Trial by Jury, .E.D. VA (filed May 16, 2001). The former VeriSign Representative to ICANN and Director, Internet Relations filed a pro se action alleging racial discrimination and charging that defendant corporations but did not maintain a consistent policy and practice for announcing or posting and promoting employees to all its open positions at the executive and Director levels. Plaintiff sent copies of his complaint to NTIA, ICANN and the Department of Commerce and the domain policy mailing list hosted by NSI. In January 2002, a Virginia judge ruled in favor of VeriSign but a judge overturned the verdict in July 2002 and ordered a retrial because senior VeriSign executives fabricated evidence.

NATIONAL A-1 ADVERTISING and LYNN HABERSTROH v. NSI

National A-1 Advertising, Inc. and Lynn Haberstroh v. Network Solutions Inc., et al., Civ. No. 99-033-M (D.N.H. September 28, 2000) - The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and held that Network Solutions Inc. did not violate plaintiffs' First Amendment rights by refusing, under its "decency policy," to register domain names that contained various sexually-oriented words and phrases. The First Amendment only "proscribes governmental conduct, not conduct undertaken by private citizens." Accordingly, for the conduct of NSI to fall within its strictures, NSI must be deemed to be a "state actor" when engaging in such conduct. "[I]f [NSI] was not a state actor when it acted as registrar for second-level domain names, the First Amendment did not restrict it from imposing limits on the words or phrases that it would accept for registration. "...to the extent that the word... or the phrase ...are communicative, protected speech, those 'messages' are successfully conveyed to the Internet user in the only 'forum' even arguably relevant to this inquiry: the complete URL as displayed on the user's computer. Thus, contrary to plaintiffs' assertions, Network Solutions' refusal to register the Disapproved Names as second-level domain names did not constitute a 'prior restraint' on protected speech."
  • National A-1 Advertising, Inc. and Lynn Haberstroh v. Network Solutions Inc., et al., Opinion, Civ. No. 99-033-M (D.N.H. September 28, 2000)

NEULEVEL v. AMAZON.COM

NeuLevel Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc., E.D. Va., C.A. No. 01-1245 - In a complaint filed August 9, 2001, NeuLevel alleged its .BIZ domain name registration system does not infringe on trademarks and should be immune from state and federal claims because of its operation under the authority of the Commerce Department, The lawsuit was prompted by a demand from Amazon.com which threatened litigation if NeuLevel did not address Amazon's concerns and abandon its domain name registration system. In its amended complaint, NeuLevel dropped the claim that it enjoys derivative sovereign immunity based on its sponsorship by ICANN

ONTARIO LTD, dba DOMAIN REGISTRY v. TUCOWS, INC.

1446513 Ontario Ltd., dba Domain Registry of Canada and Domain Registry of America Inc. v. Tucows Inc., Tucows.Com, Tucows International Corp and 3501256 Canada Inc., dba RegisterForLess, Superior Court of Justice, 02-CV-232089-CM3. The Canadian registrar, Domain Registry of Canada, alleged that Tucows defamed it in a direct mail campaign warning customers who received renewal notices from a service they don't want and didn't choose to deal with. Plaintiffs seek temporary and permanent injunction restraining Tucows from defamatory statements and seek $21M in general ,special and aggravated damages. Tucows filed a counterclaim on August 1, 2002

OPPEDAHL & LARSON V. NSI

  • Oppedahl & Larson v. Network Solutions, Inc., Order and Memorandum of Decision, U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, CV 97 N 1406 (Consolidated with CV 97 N 2456 for all purposes) (April 16, 1998)

OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION V. NSI

Optima Technology Corporation, founded in 1990, filed a lawsuit against Network Solutions, Inc. seeking $3M in damages and alleging that the registrar gave away its OPTIMATECH.COM domain name without its authorization. When Optima noticed sharply declining revenues in 2001, it realized that the domain name transfer wa responsible, according to the complaint.

PANAVISION INTL., v. TOEPPEN, NSI

  • Panavision International, L.P. v. Dennis Toeppen; Network Solutions, Inc., Opinion on Appeal, No. 97-55467, U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, D.C. No. CV-96-03284-DDP-JRx (April 17, 1998)

PGMEDIA, INC., dba NAME.SPACE v. NSI and NSF

Name.Space, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc. and National Science Foundation, U.S 2D, No. 99-6080, Decision (January 21, 2000)

POPULAR ENTERPRISES, LLC v. VERISIGN, INC.

Popular Enterprises LLC, operator of the Netster.com search site, filed a lawsuit against VeriSign over its controversial SiteFinder service that directs lookups to the registry's search page if user's enter a non-existent URL. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, seeks an injunction barring VeriSign from running SiteFinder and damages of up to $100 million. Popular Enterprises has accusesd VeriSign of antitrust violations, unfair competition and violations of the Unfair Trade Practices Act.

REGISTER.COM v. DOMAIN REGISTRY OF CANADA

Register.com, an ICANN-accredited registrar, filed suit against a competitor, Domain Registry of Canada, in its native New York in September 2002. DROC is a reseller for Washington-based eNom, Inc. and trades as Domain Registry of America, Inc. The lawsuit alleges that DROC engages in a "deceptive and misleading scheme" known as "domain slamming" to lure away customers. "Domain slamming" occurs when a registrar solicits the customer of a competitor, asking them to transfer their business, but makes the solicitation look like a renewal or expiration notice to confuse them into making the switch. DROC claims Register.com engages in similar practices. DROC is already embroiled in a Canadian lawsuit with registrar Tucows. alleging unfair competition, false advertising, breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. Tucows has countersued, alleging domain slamming.

REGISTER.COM v. VERIO, INC.

Register.com, Inc., v. Verio Inc., SDNY 00-Civ-5747 (BSJ)
Third ICANN Advisory Concerning Register.com v. Verio Litigation (February 2, 2001)
Register.com's Response to Verio's Petition (January 26, 2001)
Second ICANN Advisory Concerning Register.com v. Verio Litigation (December 26, 2000)
Verio's Petition for Termination of Register.com's Registrar Accreditation Agreement (December 21, 2000)
Order Granting Injunction: Register.com, Inc. v. Verio Inc. (December 8, 2000)
ICANN Advisory Concerning Register.com v. Verio Litigation (September 24, 200)
ICANN's Amicus Curiae Memorandum (September 22, 2000)

REGLAND, INC. v ICANN

Regland, Inc. v. ICANN, District Court of Bexar County, Texas, Petition (October 31, 2000) ICANN was served with a defamation lawsuit in Texas district court by RegLand.com. The suit charges ICANN and its counsel, Louis Touton, with scaring away RegLand.com customers by posting warnings about the company's plans to offer $20 pre-registrations for proposed TLDs that ICANN may add to the root server system. The lawsuit also alleges defamation, business disparagement and tortious interference.

SEVEN WORDS LLC v. NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.

Seven Words LLC v. Network Solutions Inc. , C.D. Cal, 99-02816 SVW, Amended Complaint (April 12, 1999) and, Seven Words LLC v. Network Solutions Inc. , 9th Cir., No. 99-56909, 8/13/01). - Organization sued NSI alleging its refusal to allow the use of offensive words violates First Amendment, because NSI operates under authority of the Commerce Department. Amended complaint added ICANN as defendant. NSI agreed to turn disputed domains over to court pending outcome of case. On April 22, 1999, a California judge issued a temporary injunction on various domains which contained the "filthy" words. The court said the dispute evaporated because NSI has changed its policy of prohibiting registration of certain domain names, and NSI no longer has a monopoly on domain name registrations. Decision appealed to the 9th Circuit. Request for damages stated for first time in appeal was moot where party did not request damages in its complaint, seeking only injunctive and declaratory relief.

VERISIGN v. ICANN

Verisign filed suit against Internet coordinator ICANN in California in February 2004, claiming it had been unlawfully prevented from adding new features to the .COM and .NET registry. The lawsuit contains 43 pages of grievances over ICANN's opposition to VeriSign's introduction of SiteFinder, a new type of search service. ICANN claims the new service will disrupt the stability of the Internet.

ZURAKOV v. REGISTER.COM

Zurakov v. Register.com, N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty., No. 600703/01, 7/25/01 - Michael Zurakov registered a domain name with Register.com and entered into a service contract for that name. Prior to Zurakov's construction of his Web site corresponding to his domain name, Register posted a "Coming Soon Page." His suit claimed that the banner violated the implied covenant of good faith and state business law statutes. The court held that domain name was a service contract, not a property right over which the plaintiff had exclusive control, and the motion to dismiss the complaint was granted without prejudice. In a follow-up class action lawsuit, the parties proposed a settlement wherein Register.com agrees to provide each member of the class with a certificate for $5 off the fee for registering or renewing a domain name with the registrar, for up to 9 months. Register.com also agreed to pay Zukarov $12,500 and attorney's fees of $642,500.
.

.
DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES
INDEX

I - R

S - Z

UDRP

 

 

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Federal Courts Map
lst Circuit
2nd Circuit
3rd Circuit
4th Circuit
5th Circuit
6th Circuit
7th Circuit
8th Circuit
9th Circuit
10th Circuit
11th Circuit
Federal Circuit
DC Circuit

Domain Handbook Cover

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Website design and host

 

Contact | Order | Site | News | Disputes | Policy | ICANN | Lists | Archives
Contents | Reviews | Viewpoint | Acknowledgment | Glossary | Special Features | Booklist
 The Domain Name Handbook: High Stakes and Strategies in Cyberspace
Copyright© 2000-2004 Ellen Rony and Peter Rony. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.domainhandbook.com/legal..html