Cincinnati.com published an article on a Minnesota court case that declared domain names are property and subject to garnishment. (TIP of the Cap to George Kirikos who tweeted out the story)
Back in December of 2013 John Berryhill left a comment that I felt was good enough to be its own post, John spoke of why domain investors really don’t want domain names to be property.
From the article:
A Minnesota Appellate Court recently weighed in on an emerging question in the online world – is a domain name and the Web site associated with it subject to a garnishment order? The court said yes, meaning successful plaintiffs now have an additional asset to look to for collection purposes.
A civil lawsuit has three basic elements – liability, damages and collectability. Liability assigns responsibility – i.e., did the defendant breach the contract? Damages simply means what amount is the plaintiff due for the breach. But the third factor, collectability, may be the most important. That is, can you collect the damage award? It’s great to get a big damage award, but the euphoria can fade pretty quickly if the defendant doesn’t have the money to pay it.
The trial court ruled the domain and Web site were not subject to a garnishment order, and Sprinkler appealed. On appeal, the court held domain names are property, in that they are well-defined interests and the right to use them is transferable and subject to claims of exclusivity. In addition, the court found domain names are also subject to intellectual property protection. And in the appellate court’s view, given that Minnesota law subjects to garnishment any tangible or intangible property of any kind not specifically exempt, there was no reason the domain name and Web site couldn’t be used to satisfy a judgment.
Read the full story on Cincinnati.com
I am wondering what “intellectual property protection” a domain name will get. I guess there will be no one complaining somebody else has a lot of domains. Only a fool complains that his neighbor has a lot of intellectual properties.
Id be very interested what Mr Beryrhill has to say on this question-I understand the domain as “Property” issue but-here’s the difference I think the court is missing. As to a “domain be protected etc” If you own a home on 333 Park st in Boston for the past year the owner of a home for 35years on 333 Park st in Madison Wi. can’t take your property because it’s “confusing” he/she couldn’t even take it if it was in the next town over with the same address-not so in the domain world. So where is the same “Protection” that this court sees ?
The post that MB linked to contains some of JBerryhill’s comments on the subject. Essentially, though, it depends on the issue.
While some people want some kind of all-in-one answer, unfortunately it’s not possible here.
Its pretty amazing that as we are going to celebrate the 30th anniversary of .Com this year, and we still do not have an uniform answer on this question.
I think this is a historic ruling in the sense that it is the first clear official high court judgement about the nature of a domain name. Shouldn’t it be included in a law textbook?
Hehe, not really historic. Check out a similar case, Office Depot vs. Zuccarini.
@ london555, it isn’t about confusing domain names or cybersquatting. The judgement was $156,000 for vlolation of copyright. I like to see a judgement like that that discourages impersonation and scraping copyrighted content, but the judgement – if you read through the end – doesn’t award the domain and website to the plaintiff, Sprinkler Warehouse Inc., but the website and domain have to be sold.
My research yields:
http://gplawn.com
is the website. I wonder how much the domain and website would bring on Flippa, if it will be listed as BIN for the judgement amount, or could it hold out for $300,000, so that the defendant can also realize some revenue from it . . .
Please go back and reread what I wrote.
Hi @longdon555, You offered the example:
If you own a home on 333 Park st in Boston for the past year the owner of a home for 35years on 333 Park st in Madison Wi. can’t take your property because it’s “confusing”
It seemed like an interesting aspect of the case cited that the plaintiff didn’t receive the domain! From the article
Since you said, “can’t take your property,” I thought you assumed the decision was like UDRP, where a Complainant DOES take over the property, the domain.
I’m not seeing this ruling as a landmark at all. Read the actual case, the defendant has an ongoing business running through an otherwise worthless domain name, The ruling attaches that domain name to the actual eCommerce website. Basically, it is the online business that is being seized and the domain is obviously inseparable from that.
gplawn.com is worthless?
Relatively, yes it is. The only reason it has any value is because of the attached e-commerce business.
Seriously, you know better. How much could you possibly think the “domain” by itself would be worth, had it never been connected to that business, a few hundred dollars at best?
Leasing the url rights from the dept of commerce does give you rights to a physical property like real estate. With a home your get a free and clear title, with a url, you get rights to use not right to own..