[Ws2-jurisdiction] [EXTERNAL] Re: ISSUE: In rem Jurisdiction over ccTLDs

[Nigel Roberts]

Only if the ccTLD is cybersquatting someone else's name.

And that's of vanishingly small likelihood. The fact is that the name is 
allocated not by ICANN, but by the ISO-3166 Maintainence Agency, and 
even in the odd one or two cases where there is a trademark in the two 
letter combination (I can only think of Bhutan) there is clearly no 
conflict, since that country isn't selling phone service to UK customers.



On 24/08/17 15:46, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch wrote:
> Excuse again my ignorance, but is the legislation under 18 U.S.C. §
> 981(b)(2), which provides a legal framework for property seizures by the
> government, not general enough to allow for the seizure of a TLD if it
> is considered as an asset or property being used for committing crimes
> that may be prosecuted in the US?
>
> Let’s say a ccTLD or a gTLD evolve in a way that they may be considered
> under that act as such asset/property – could it not be seized with theOly if
> fact that they are registered under ICANN’s root being a sufficient
> connection?
>
> Thanks for any specific hint and regards
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> *Von:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Mueller,
> Milton L
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 24. August 2017 16:39
> *An:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [EXTERNAL] Re: ISSUE: In rem
> Jurisdiction over ccTLDs
>
>
>
> Yes, Becky this is correct, ACPA is an anti-cybersquatting law for
> trademark protection and was written with second-level domains in mind.
>
> I guess it is possible that a gTLD would be subject to ACPA – but if and
> only if someone managed to cybersquat a trademark in the TLD level. And
> since ICANN’s TLD awarding process is so heavily biased toward trademark
> owners, it is unlikely that a TM-violating TLD (say, giving .IBM to
> Parminder) would ever happen. But if it did, I supposed it could be
> applied. I can’t see how it could ever be applied to a ccTLD.
>
>
>
> *From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Burr, Becky
> via Ws2-jurisdiction
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 22, 2017 7:02 PM
> *To:* Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>;
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>;
> thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br>;
> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [EXTERNAL] Re: ISSUE: In rem
> Jurisdiction over ccTLDs
>
>
>
> Fwiw, to the extent that US courts have in rem jurisdiction over domain
> names, my recollection is that is a function of very specific
> anti-squatting trademark law and is extremely unlikely to apply to ccTLDs.
>
>
>
> *J. Beckwith Burr****
> **Neustar, Inc.***/**Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW DC 20006
> *Office:***+1.202.533.2932  *Mobile:***+1.202.352.6367
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>