Domain Names Seized to Pay Cybersquatting Judgment

it points out that the registrars are essentially intermediaries, that it is applicable. . . .1 also provides for the legal situs of the domain name once a f.3d 1084 (9th cir. 2009). many internet domain names. ds holdings ("dsh") is the where the levy is to be made: district court to look to state rules. the version of rule 69(a) the proceeds to satisfy the judgment. the district court the majority of domain name registrations for engaged in discovery. it learned that zuccarini owned more two quasi-in rem jurisdiction is sometimes called "attachment ment of california law, and that domain names are intangible protection act of 1999 ("acpa"), 15 u.s.c. � 1125(d), aris- the registrars, who in turn interact with the registries. senger corp., 72 f.3d 17, 19 (2d cir. 1995) ("this term the united states, the owner may proceed in rem against the ment." section 699.710 provides, inter alia, "[a]ll property over property situated within its geographical borders. see opinion by judge william a. fletcher the underlying litigation that led to the judgment against zuc- counsel � 1292(a)(2) to entertain an appeal from an interlocutory application of the judgment creditor and shall be states, germany, and israel. dsh filed a request in the district `common sense appraisal of the requirements of justice and such actions are undertaken in aid of executing on a judg- attachment, in the northern district. (2007). sition that domain names are personal property located wher- mesa, california, for the plaintiff-appellee. ent places where registrars of the domain names are located. ".com" domain names in its levy. tabacalera severiano jorge, s. a. v. standard cigar co., 392 cess concerns are satisfied, assuming proper notice, by the july 17, 2009--san francisco, california jurisdiction. id. at 210 n.36 ("once it has been determined by california is not a proper place to levy upon his domain [2] a district court can obtain quasi in rem jurisdiction 3130 office depot v. zuccarini appeal from the united states district court domain names do not constitute property subject to a turnover tell the registries who owns domain names, any attachment these provisions). although the current proceeding is not an "the situs of intangibles is often a matter of controversy," all ".com" and ".net" domain names, has its headquarters. the jurisdiction to determine the existence of the debt as an origi- place for tax purposes in certain circumstances; it purposes of appointing a receiver to assist in executing a judg- thus, reading a domain name from right to left, the a money judgment is enforced by a writ of execution, unless the that serve as registrars for second level domain money shall be a writ of execution, unless the court levy upon zuccarini's domain name holdings in the northern no. 07-16788ds holdings, llc, where the registry is located for the purpose of asserting quasi lawsuit has been filed: include .com, .gov, .net., and .biz. each tld is applied under rule 69(a) to garnishment, mandamus, arrest, orderly satisfaction of the judgment. district of california where verisign, the official registry for 563 f.3d 837, 844 (9th cir. 2009). we review de novo a dis- 3127office depot v. zuccarini in an in rem action under this paragraph, a domain some background information on the structure of the registered to one entity . . . . [a]fter entry of a money judgment, a writ of execu- f.2d 706, 714-15 (5th cir. 1968) (citations omitted). a single that the registry controls the database of all domain names, appraisal of the interests of "justice and convenience." af-cap the proper ip numbers for the respective domain this rule does not indicate where a receiver over property piece of intangible property may be located in multiple places order because they cannot be taken into custody. the court in considering the interests of both the judgment credi- the internet [domain name system] provides an ship to dsh. the district court denied the request, holding there is no in personam jurisdiction in any judicial district of that, under california civil procedure code � 699.040, it inc., 383 f.3d at 371. zuccarini argues that since registrars "except as otherwise provided by law, all property of the names and that the appointment of the receiver was therefore appellee. overriding national concern, like the application of [4] rule 66 governs the appointment of a receiver in fed- the judgment. rem jurisdiction can be asserted over intangible property. cv-06-80356-siv. zuccarini appealed. we have jurisdiction under 28 u.s.c. that if the domain names are property subject to execution, impede the ability of judgment creditors to levy upon domain the rule was amended as of december 1, 2008. the updated text of the richard a. paez, circuit judges. questions in turn. shaffer). property subject to a writ of execution. hanson v. denckla, 357 u.s. 235, 246-47 (1958), quasi in law, to appointment of receiver in aid of an action for execu- domain names shall be "in the judicial district in which the susan yvonne illston, district judge, presiding 3119 before: cynthia holcomb hall, william a. fletcher and california civil procedure code � 708.620 governs the [1] the type of jurisdiction at issue is "type two quasi in ment of a receiver is sought or a receiver sues or is needed to transfer ownership of a domain name from one reg- names upon which dsh seeks to levy were not involved in respect to a turnover order, property must "be levied upon by [8] given the persuasive but not controlling language of shall be in accordance with the practice and proce- tion off some of zuccarini's domain names in order to satisfy ever the registry or the registrar are located. ".com" domain names owned by zuccarini to transfer owner- try") for all domain names within the scope of their authority. f.2d 300, 301 (10th cir. 1946) (applying rule 69(a), and state district of california has in personam jurisdiction over zuc- poses, i.e., garnishment; it may be in more than one 1116, 1120 (9th cir. 1987); see also edmonston v. sisk, 156 directs otherwise. the procedure on execution, in process to enforce a judgment for the payment of domain name system will be helpful to the reader: ment." under these provisions, all property of a judgment must accord with the procedure of the state where the court is we affirm. action can proceed in personam against the cybersquatter. if on the purpose to be served: debtor can be used to satisfy a writ of execution. server. indus., inc. v. gregg, 540 f.2d 142, 151 n.5 (3rd cir. 1976)). 3123office depot v. zuccarini opinionjohn zuccarini, doing business as proceedings supplementary to and in aid of a judg- accord with the historical practice in federal courts 3125office depot v. zuccarini ship of property in a dispute unrelated to the property. type appointment of a receiver in aid of the execution of a judg- whether the name is available, and register available ".net". id. at 953. its headquarters are located in mountain california civil procedure code � 695.010(a) provides, name servers. the domain name servers direct inter- tion whether domain names constitute intangible property are long strings of numbers, such as 64.233.161.147. generally, and it cited kremen with approval. moreover, the period is the top-level domain ("tld"). tlds to paraphrase, rule 69 provides that state law applies gener- with registries on behalf of those who own the names. regis- should be directed to registrars. zuccarini also argues that if dev. co. v. port of astoria, 109 f.3d 516, 518 (9th cir. 1997). (ii)(i). the acpa provides that in rem jurisdiction over these situs for intangibles must be context-specific, embodying a commercial purposes utilize the .com tld. for some purposes. curry v. mccanless, 307 u.s. 357, 367-68 before us, we add that we see no reason why for that purpose in the manner provided by state law in that district."). though against zuccarini under the anticybersquatting consumer action under the acpa, the statute is authority for the propo- carini. chy of each domain name is divided by periods. 3131office depot v. zuccarini ing discovery, dsh learned that the registrars for zuccarini's appointing a receiver. canada life assurance co. v. lapeter, both parties make practical arguments relevant to an (1939). affirmed. nal matter."); glencore grain rotterdam b.v. v. shivnath rai or with a local rule. an action in which a receiver and that any change in ownership is ultimately reflected in the location for appointment of a receiver in aid of execution of previous rendering of a judgment by a court of competent a judgment. because rule 66 does not provide a governing fed. r. civ. p. 4(n)(2) ("[t]he court may assert jurisdiction palacio del mar based its holding on a reading of california tion shall be issued by the clerk of the court upon lic of congo, 383 f.3d 361, 371 (5th cir. 2004) (quoting u.s. ing an action to realize on that debt in a state where the trars maintain an ownership record for each domain name 337 f.3d 1024, 1030 (9th cir. 2003). in palacio del mar ment, and in proceedings on and in aid of execution that district is an appropriate location to execute judgment on civil procedure code � 699.040, which provides that, with burgoyne llp, san francisco, california, for the assignee- plaintiff-appellee, pennington v. fourth nat'l bank, 243 u.s. 269, 272 (1917); these rules govern an action in which the appoint- court for a turnover order to compel the registrars of certain constitutionally sufficient relationship among the defendant, trar is located. in december 2000, office depot obtained a judgment 3124 office depot v. zuccarini intangible property under california law. kremen v. cohen, [9] because verisign has its headquarters in the northern portion of the domain name to the right of the first two quasi in rem jurisdiction is used to establish the owner- existing at the time the remedy is sought, except that over the defendant's assets found in the district. jurisdiction two questions before us. first, are domain names property that jurisdiction." see restatement (second) of judgments � 8 operator maintains the definitive database, or regis- w. fletcher, circuit judge: iii. discussion obtained a preservation order from the district court and the acpa, and the practicalities involved in bringing suit to receiver is a reasonable method to obtain the fair and the court may appoint a receiver to enforce the district court appointed a receiver to take control of and auc- istrant to another. third, individuals and companies called 1 v. fdic, 969 f.2d 940, 942 (10th cir. 1992). therefore, rule judgment debtor is subject to enforcement of a money judg- trict court for the northern district of california. dsh then the force and effect of federal statutes."); okla. radio assoc. ject to levy under a writ of execution to satisfy a money judg- located, but a federal statute governs to the extent it applies. domain name authority that registered or assigned the domain the situs may be in one place for ad valorem tax club.com, 310 f.3d 293, 302 (2d cir. 2002) (interpreting than 248 domain names registered with verisign, of which harris v. balk, 198 u.s. 215 (1905). due process requires a district of california, the district court had quasi in rem juris- ass'n, 112 f.2d 247, 249-50 (9th cir. 1940) (applying federal district where verisign has its headquarters, every ".net" and conclusion granted the motion to appoint a receiver. they have registered with a registry. action by a registrar is tor and the judgment debtor, the appointment of a names. registrars accept registrations for new or name shall be deemed to have its situs in the judicial taking it into custody." however, the court left open the ques- opinion rule, we look to state law. sumer protection act congress has addressed the question. ceedings supplementary to and in aid of judgment or execution-- [6] first, we have already held that domain names are names if they were required to bring suits in the many differ- for the northern district of california henry m. burgoyne iii, karl s. kronenberger, kronenberger depot.com." office depot was unable to collect on the defendant-appellant. zuccarini appeals, contending that the northern district of dsh sought to levy upon some of the other domain names erty is necessarily a legal fiction; therefore, the selection of a has been appointed may be dismissed only by court execute judgments against owners of domain names, we con- convenience in particular conditions.' " af-cap inc. v. repub- receivers. we conclude that kremen is still an accurate state- clude under california law that domain names are located dure of the state in which the district court is held, assignee-appellee, d.c. no. that is subject to enforcement of a money judgment . . . is sub- i. background that is, the location of intangible property varies depending dsh admits that instructions concerning the transfer of court directs otherwise. the procedure on execution--and in pro- improper. in rem jurisdiction. although the question is not directly moved for the appointment of a receiver who would obtain alphanumeric shorthand for ip addresses. the hierar- utes under rule 69(a). bair v. bank of am. nat'l trust & sav. the act of state doctrine is involved. ownership of domain names must go through registrars. but order appointing a receiver. zuccarini's intangible property that is located, for purposes of the federal rules, including rule 66, qualify as federal stat- istry, or other domain name authority that registered diction over the domain names registered with verisign for office depot inc., "taking it into custody" language in � 699.040 does not the levy is to be made and to any registered process 3122 office depot v. zuccarini unique internet protocol ("ip") address. ip addresses appropriate place to direct a writ of execution is the county ever, rule 66 does not provide a rule governing the proper every computer connected to the internet has a judgment and eventually assigned the judgment to dsh. 3129office depot v. zuccarini allegedly infringing domain name. 15 u.s.c. � 1125(d)(2)(a) michael woodrow de vries, latham & watkins llp, costa defendant has property, whether or not that state would have homeowners ass'n, inc. v. mcmahon, 174 cal. app. 4th relied upon by the district court provided as follows: f. supp. 2d 948, 951-53 (n.d. cal. 2006), reversed by 567 rem." see restatement (first) of judgments � 32 (1942). type directed to the levying officer in the county where second, companies called "registrars" register domain names may be in still a different place when the need for trict court's interpretation of law, including state law. capital that these amendments were merely stylistic. advisory committee note argued and submitted ".com" and ".net" domain names were located in the united owned by zuccarini. dsh registered the judgment in the dis- are three primary actors in the domain name system. first, judgment where the judgment creditor shows that, names located for purposes of execution? we address these second, we note that "attaching a situs to intangible prop- any statute of the united states governs to the extent we have previously noted that "[s]tate law has been ment in california state courts. it provides: rule is as follows: country walk, expiring domain names, connect to the appropriate united states court of appeals establishing its true situs is to determine whether an ally, but a federal statute governs to the extent it applies. ".com" domain name is located in that district. john zuccarini is a judgment debtor who owns the rights to harnarain co., 284 f.3d 1114, 1127 (9th cir. 2002) (quoting district in which . . . the domain name registrar, reg- and sell the ".com" domain names in question and would use net queries to the related web resources. a registrant should be appointed. however, � 699.510(a) provides that the includes the federal rules of civil procedure, since they have purposes; it may be in another place for venue pur- tion); 12 wright & miller, federal practice and procedure registry. additionally, dsh points out that it would greatly on execution of a judgment and, for the most part, directs the and if they are located in the northern district of california, john zuccarini, pro se, stuart, florida, defendant-appellant. ment. in re merrill lynch relocation mgmt., inc., 812 f.2d order. a court of competent jurisdiction that the defendant is a debtor with the appropriate registry operator. a registry 3132 office depot v. zuccarini more than 190 were ".com" domain names. dsh targeted the verisign is the registry for the domain names ".com" and for the ninth circuit [7] california law says nothing specific about the location 3126 office depot v. zuccarini contempt of a party, and appointment of receivers," when rule to rule 69 action); see also schneider v. nat'l r.r. pas- can register a domain name only through companies eral court. it provides: (1982). so far as the record in this case shows, the domain or assigned the domain name is located . . . . assignee of the judgment against zuccarini. dsh attempted to a domain name is created when it is registered 66 prevails over any state law to the extent it applies. how- domain names are not also located where the relevant regis- 204 (1977). in an action to execute on a judgment, due pro- sued. but the practice in administering an estate by companies called "registries" operate a database (or "regis- try, that associates the registered domain names with coalition for icann transparency, inc. v. verisign, inc., 464 we review for abuse of discretion a district court order 3128 office depot v. zuccarini dsh does not argue that the district court in the northern ing out of zuccarini's registration of the domain name "offic- why this is so. view, california, in the northern district of california. dur- each domain name is unique and thus can only be could not order third parties to turn over property. dsh then of domain names. however, in the anticybersquatting con- of the plaintiff, there would seem to be no unfairness in allow- divided into second-level domains identified by the is subject to execution? second, if so, where are the domain the forum, and the litigation. shaffer v. heitner, 433 u.s. 186, as explained in coalition for icann transparency, there "registrants" own the domain names. registrants interact with name is located . . . ." 15 u.s.c. � 1125(d)(2)(a). the acpa domain names on behalf of registrants . . . . fed. r. civ. p. 69(a)(1) (2009). the advisory committee notes indicate [3] federal rule of civil procedure 69 governs procedures ample" in "example.com" or "example.net." . . . ment against the owner of the names. appear in � 708.620, which governs the appointment of them through the appointment of a receiver. there are thus filed february 26, 2010 for publication registry operator's tld servers to determine carini. rather, it argues that the court has jurisdiction over id. � 1125(d)(2)(c)(i); see also mattel, inc. v. barbie- � 3012 at 148-49. we now take the opportunity to explain domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other ii. standard of review a receiver or a similar court-appointed officer must under the acpa, a trademark owner in a civil cybersquatting [5] the combined effect of these provisions is to provide the domain names under verisign's control are located in the designation to the left of the first period, such as "ex- is acquired by seizing the assets under the circumstances and 1386, 1391 (2009), a california court of appeal held that