Judge denies request to go after domain names auctioned at NameJet.
Yesterday Judge Susan Illston of U.S. District Court – Northern District of California denied a request for emergency relief on domain names that a court appointed receiver let expire.
On June 4 DNW wrote about how NameJet auctioned off a handful of expired domain names that were held at Network Solutions. It turns out that the domain names were part of the estate of John Zuccarini and were being held by a court-appointed receiver to eventually satisfy a cybersquatting judgment won by Office Depot.
Office Depot previously assigned the judgment to DS Holdings, which stands to potentially lose money after the domain names expired. DS Holdings and Zuccarini asked the court for an emergency injunction to recover the domain names that the receiver let expire.
After getting dragged peripherally into the case because it was the registrar for the domains, Network Solutions asked the court to let it intervene in the case. But the judge denied that too, suggesting that she is not terribly concerned about what happened to the domain names that were lost:
“Defendant John Zuccarini’s and judgment creditor DS Holdings, LLC’s emergency applications for temporary injunctive relief came on for hearing on June 15, 2010. Both emergency applications are DENIED at this time. The receiver and the parties are free to agree on a procedure for auction of the approximately 116 domain names that remain in the receiver’s control, subject to the Court’s approval. Additionally, Network Solutions, LLC’s motion to intervene as a plaintiff in this action is hereby DENIED without prejudice to renewal at a later date.”
Not at all surprised by this decision. The federal courts are usually quite unlikely to grant domain injunctions based on strict new Supreme Court injunction rules and on personal experience.
SusanIllston.com is available.. I’m just sayn’
“The federal courts are usually quite unlikely to grant domain injunctions based on strict new Supreme Court injunction rules and on personal experience.”
I was unaware of any “new Supreme Court injunction rules” concerning domain injunctions.
Considering CA law says that domain names cannot be levied because they are intangible property, see: “Palacio Del Mar Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Arnold A. McMahon”
The 9th Cir. in the Office Depot/DS Holdings v Zuccarini case changed what CA law actually said so that they could take over Zuccaini’s Domain names.
Nevertheless, should the Domain Names be sold off, and they have over 100 of them, and CA law also says that neither the debtor or creditor can put a price on the domain names, Zuccarini should be allowed to sell them off to the highest bidder, after all it is his debt to satisfy. Letting some num-nut drop the ball and the sale’s price not to go fully to Zuccarini’s debt is just another one of the government’s misfit follies.
Just filed for VeriSign, let’s see what they say…
A. The Illegal Transfer of John Zuccarini’s Domain Names and VeriSign’s Culpability.
There are two central issues before The Court related to VeriSign Inc. (“VeriSign”) the registrar for all .com and .net domain names, and it’s working relationship with all .com and .net registrars. That is, does a domain name registry have the power to correct an illegal action by a domain name registrar, as in this case the illegal transfer of domain names by the registrars, and does a Federal Court Order have the authority to Order a registry to rectify such an illegal action by a registrar. The answer to both is unquestionably yes.
This issue was directly addressed in America Online, Inc. v. AOL.org, 259 F. Supp. 2d 449, 454 (E.D. Va. 2003). A Federal Court in Virginia ordered the registry for all .org domain names, Public Interest Registry (“PIR”) to transfer to the Plaintiff, America Online Inc. (“AOL”) the domain name “aol.org” which was won in an in rem action under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”), because the registrar of the domain name, Online NIC Inc., located in China refused to transfer the domain name as ordered by a Federal Court, but allowed instead the registrant of the domain name to transfer the domain name to another registrar, Netpia.com, Inc. in South Korea. Subsequently because of this illegal transfer the plaintiff, AOL asked the Court for an amended motion to Order the registry, PIR to transfer the domain name to AOL, and the Court correctly granted that motion.
The circumstances in the Office Depot v Zuccarini post-judgment case, and the America Online, Inc. v. AOL.org case are identical in that the registrars, Network Solutions (“NSI”) and eNom, (“eNom”) both committed an illegal act, which they refuse to acknowledge, as did the registrar Online NIC Inc., in America Online, Inc. v. AOL.org. That illegal act being the transfer of the domain names from the ownership of the John Zuccarini (“Zuccarini or Plaintiff”), in violation of the registrar / registrant agreements with Zuccarini, to Michael Blacksburg (“Blacksburg”), the reciever of Office Depot, Inc. v. Zuccarini, Case No. CV-06-80356-SI, N.D. Cal. The transfer of the domain names was the result of an illegal agreement made (the conspiracy, before The Court) made by the DS Holdings, (“DSH”) in the Office Depot v Zuccarini post-judgment case, with all of the domain name registrars at which Zuccarini owned domain names.
B. VeriSign Has Failed to Identify the Alleged Court Order to Transfer the Names.
As is with all the Defendants, the claim of a Court Order which required the registrars to transfer Zuccarini’s domain names is often stated to The Court, but never produced by any of the Defendants. VeriSign fares no different. VeriSign states on page 1 of their motion.
“the alleged transfer was made pursuant to court orders entered against Plaintiff by the District Court for the Northern District of California in the pending action, Office Depot, Inc.v. Zuccarini, No. 3:06-mc-80356-SI,”
Despite stating the transfer was made pursuant to court orders against Zuccarini, and in spite of a voluminous amount of exhibits supplied to The Court in their pleadings, VeriSign has failed to explicitly identify any of those exhibits as the court order to which they are referring.
C. Court Order Has Never Existed to Order Registrars to Transfer the Domain Names.
All the Defendants in this case continue to cling, to the inaccurate assertion that The District Court for the Northern District Court of California had Ordered the transfer of Zuccarini’s domain names from all of the domain name registrars, which include NSI and eNom, to the receiver Blacksburg, as this could be the only possible reason that the transfer could be found legal. Clearly though, all statements and Orders by the District Court in California indisputably show that The Court did not order NSI, eNom or any domain name registrar to transfer Zuccarini’s domain names to the receiver Blacksburg.
Considering NSI’s and eNom’s refusal to acknowledge or correct the illegal transfer of the domain names, and in the absence of VeriSign voluntarily correcting this illegal act by the registrars in transferring the domain names back to Zuccarini’s ownership. This Court is asked to intervene, and Order the domain name registry, VeriSign, to return all the illegally transferred domain names back to Zuccarini.
D. VeriSign’s Motion to Dismiss.
VeriSign, like all other Defendants assert Zuccarini’s domain names were transferred in response to a Court Order directed to the registrars. This is a completely false, as the November 14, 2007 Order titled “Order Granting Receiver’s Request To Lift Preservation Order” cited by all Defendants was directed at receiver Blacksburg, not the registrars, to carry out the steps of the illegal agreement between DSH and registrars to transfer Zuccarini’s Domain Names. Exhibit A.
DSH Appellee’s Brief filed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, page 2, clearly states the cooperation and agreement between DSH and the registrars to transfer Zuccarini’s domain names. “The district court denied DSH’s request, concluding that it could not order third parties to turn over property pursuant to the applicable California statue, section 699.040 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. AER 46-47. After the registrars informed DSH that they would be willing to cooperate with a receiver, DSH applied for the appointment of a receiver to collect and ultimately dispose of the subject domains…” Exhibit B.
Lots of things going on, what happened to howard, what the hell did he do to prevent this…
Not much I guess..