Court of Appeals rejects France’s motion to dismiss on grounds of sovereign immunity.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has rejected an appeal by the country of France in a dispute over France.com.
Here’s the background:
Jean-Noël Frydman, who registered France.com in 1994, lost control of the domain name to the country of France after France intervened in a court case. Frydman was in a legal battle with an unrelated entity over trademarks when the French government intervened in the case and convinced a court to transfer France.com to it. Frydman sued in U.S. court to get the domain back.
(Hear about the saga directly from Frydman in DNW Podcast #184.)
France and its related entities filed a motion to dismiss Frydman’s lawsuit on three grounds:
1. It had sovereign immunity
2. The plaintiff was seeking to re-litigate a judgment rendered by a competent foreign court
3. The case failed to state a cause of action
United States District Judge Liam O’Grady granted (pdf) the motion to dismiss for several of the French entities (including the French Republic) because the Complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. He gave Frydman’s company 30 days to file an amended complaint.
O’Grady said the issue of sovereign immunity would best be raised after discover has concluded.
France appealed the decision on immunity. It seemed odd to me that the country would do that given the state of the case and the win it just got.
Now the Appeals Court denied (pdf) the appeal because of the current status of the case:
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949). The order Appellants seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Of course, the case is far from over. And while it works its way through the courts, France retains control of the domain name.
Richard says
At least an important first step…
Robert de la Dordogne says
Vive la France! Liberté, égalité, fraternité! Mais si vous volez notre nom de domain, c’est finis pour vous. Rencontrez Le Terminateur Virtuel.
Niklas Münch says
France stole the name and had no legal rights to it. I really hope he gets it back
Changkouth Bouth says
What is ICANN view on this case?
C.S. Watch says
Thank you, DNW, for court reporting!
Why does the home of haute cuisine and the Hall of Mirrors have such vulgah courts and police… Parisian cops with rifles shook down myself and several others on a train, split the money on the platform, and then threatened a brunette with deportation for attempting to intervene and report. Gauche.
And why isn’t .fr the brand, France? Your aggressive theft of a .com is sending the wrong message. Aren’t you cheering for the wrong team?
French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian should catch a perfumed wheef of practicality and check out SPAIN.COM, ENGLAND.COM, and GERMANY.COM. Those sites are blank, blowing their citizens’ potential tourism revenue, languishing undeveloped. Why? Because the registrants don’t want the hassle of frivolous lawsuits.
Now look at the private companies ITALY.COM and GREECE.COM. Cash money flowing through to Italian and Greek restaurants and hotels. You don’t even see Putin screwing up the sweet state of non-state affairs that is RUSSIA.COM. Like FRANCE.COM, these companies attract and serve a US and global tourism market…obviously, as they are .coms.