Courts
The most compelling argument in the world for retrieving seized domain names for gambling websites is pointless if the domain name owner doesn’t show up in court, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled. It overturned an appeals court ruling that said…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
the state’s in rem law for seizing “gambling devices” only applied to tangible objects, not domain names. The state said later it had identified some of the owners and operators as U.S. citizens and would sue directly (WID Dec 21 p5). The Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (IMEGA) and Interactive Gaming Council (IGC) argued they had standing because they claimed the targeted owners were members, and other lawyers purported to represent some of the names themselves without identifying their owners. But only “those with an interest in the property, such as current owners,” can participate in litigation, said the opinion by Justice Mary Noble. Her reasoning was joined by three other judges, while one judge concurred only with the result. “An Internet domain name does not have an interest in itself any more than a piece of land is interested in its own use,” she said. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was so outraged by the idea that property had in rem standing that it sanctioned lawyers making the claims in an earlier case, Noble said. IMEGA and IGC can’t claim to represent their purported members who own the domain names until they're identified: “This court cannot simply take their words for it.” The associational plaintiff in an earlier suit against ICANN eventually identified a member that it alleged had suffered harm, overcoming an initial hurdle to its suit -- showing that “the cyber-age status” of the gambling groups’ members doesn’t exempt them from standing rules. Noble said the groups had a low burden -- just identify a single member that suffered harm. “If a party that can properly establish standing comes forward, the writ petition giving rise to these proceedings could be re-filed with the Court of Appeals.” IMEGA called the ruling a “temporary setback” on a “technicality.” Chairman Joe Brennan said it would work with the others to identify and present a harmed owner. “The court is telling us that all that is necessary is for one domain owner to come forward, and we likely win,” he said.