Circle ID has posted an article about the status of domain names as personal property and the fact that they are subject to the claims of judgment creditors. To illustrate this point, the article examines the recent Chris Bosh case under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, in which Mr. Bosh was awarded over 800 domain names in satisfaction of the judgment he obtained under the ACPA. This article illustrates how jurisdictions treat domain names: some view domain names as property, while others view them as simply contractual rights for services.
Domain names have been held to be property in the 9th Circuit. Specifically, in Kremen v. Cohen, the Northern District of California held that domain names are property and can be subject to claims for conversion. If a jurisdiction considers domain names as property, as the 9th Circuit does, it necessarily follows that domain names can be reached by judgment creditors because they can be sold to satisfy a judgment. The problem with this approach, the article recognizes, is that domain names that are turned over as a result of a cybersquatting judgment may be subject to the very claims that resulted in the judgment in the first place and, as such, may be worth very little in the domain name after market.
If you are a judgment creditor that is looking to enforce your judgment by seizing and disposing of domain names, contact one of our expert domain name attorneys today for a free consultation.