RE: Re[3]: [ga] Registrars Draft: Transfers

[Steven Heath <Steven.Heath@Optimation.co.nz>]

William X Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com]did say:
 
> I also forgot to mention, that under the UDRP, the domain registrant
> is required to submit to the jurisdiction of the registrar in any
> court case, which lets the complainant select the jurisdiction as
> either that of the registrant OR that of the registrar.  You could be
> subject to a default judgement if you fail to make an appearance in
> that foreign court.

I found this interesting as reported by BNA's Internet Law News (ILN) -
9/26/01

REGISTRY, NOT REGISTRAR, ESTABLISHES ACPA IN REM JURISDICTION

A federal court in Virginia has ruled that Verisign's
registry function for the dot-com, which is based in
Virginia, ensures that all in-rem actions launched under the
cybersquatting act can be brought in Virginia regardless of
which registrar is responsible for the domain in question.
The decision comes in CNN v. CNNews.com (2001 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 14693) a case involving a Chinese media company that
operates a series of domains starting with CN, the Chinese
ccTLD suffix.  The domain was registered with Eastern
Communications, a Chinese-based registrar but the court
found that the ACPA in rem provisions were met by virtue of
Verisigns registry function.  The case now moves to the
substantive claim, with the domain name owner
arguing that there was no bad faith and noting that 99.5% of
its users are registered in China.

Steven Heath
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html