Hijacked domains.

[Mr Webname]

If a domain is hijacked and subsequently sold on to an innocent 3rd party, what is the legal standing of the 3rd party.
Discounting any moral responsibility for the moment, is the 3rd party legally required to return the domain at his financial loss or would he be within his rights to sell the name back or even sell it on?
Is the 3rd party stuck with the financial liability, or is it for the owner to pursue financial recovery from the thief?
Also what procedures might be followed in attempting recovery by the owner?

[_Yakov_]

P.S. Does the 3rd party has a right to retain the domain since it was bought legaly from the person listed under undministrative contact for the domain?

Say like for cars, if you buy a stolen car, you buy it legaly, the seller sels it illigaly. So, you can retain the car if you proove that you didn't know it was stolen. Is it the case with domains?

[draqon]

if the original owner can prove it was stolen from him, and then sold by the thief, you as the final owner are required to immediately hand over the domain to the original owner. You have to suffer the financial loss unfortunately, even if you are an innocent party.

[_Yakov_]

Originally posted by draqon
if the original owner can prove it was stolen from him, and then sold by the thief, you as the final owner are required to immediately hand over the domain to the original owner. You have to suffer the financial loss unfortunately, even if you are an innocent party.

draqon, who are you?

[draqon]

I am the screeching fingernail on the chalkboard of justice.
I am the wierdo that sits next to you on the bus. I am the bug that splatters on your windshield. I am the limestone that petrifies your bones. I am the super nova at the center of the universe. I am the terror that flaps in the night...

I am Draqon!

[_Yakov_]

Originally posted by draqon
I am the screeching fingernail on the chalkboard of justice.
I am the wierdo that sits next to you on the bus. I am the bug that splatters on your windshield. I am the limestone that petrifies your bones. I am the super nova at the center of the universe. I am the terror that flaps in the night...

I am Draqon!

wow

[GiantDomains]

Originally posted by _Yakov_


Say like for cars, if you buy a stolen car, you buy it legaly, the seller sels it illigaly. So, you can retain the car if you proove that you didn't know it was stolen. Is it the case with domains?

No, it's not the case with stolen cars either. You can't keep a stolen car, its seized, and you lose your $$$. At this point, you may bring a civil suit against the person who sold it to you to recover $$$.

[Mr Webname]

Originally posted by draqon
I am the bug that splatters on your windshield.

So it's you! How come you always do that after I cleaned the car?

The answers above deal with the moral aspect, which is fine but has anyone actually been through a situation like this, or can you quote law?

Questions still remain:-

1) Has a domain name been established in law as "property" and therefore like GD's scenario owner gets domain, others sue down the line?
2)How does the original owner actually prove ownership when whois shows innocent purchaser as the owner?
3) Are pushes/transfers correctly documented by registrars and so make tracing of domain moves easy and do registrars cooperate with Joe Public who might enquire about these moves?

Any of our lawyers able to offer what they see/know to be the LEGAL situation?

[jberryhill]

"1) Has a domain name been established in law as "property" and therefore like GD's scenario owner gets domain, others sue down the line? "

No.

"3) Are pushes/transfers correctly documented by registrars and so make tracing of domain moves easy"

Yes.

"and do registrars cooperate with Joe Public who might enquire about these moves?"

No.

[Banned: timechange.com]

John, concerning #1 allow me to say that in a recent case involving dividing assets between a married couple that was divorcing, there was a first definition of domains as tangible assets that can be tagged with a property value. I don't have a link but I am pretty sure it made the headlines of News.com

[Mr Webname]

Originally posted by jberryhill
"1) Has a domain name been established in law as "property" and therefore like GD's scenario owner gets domain, others sue down the line? "

No.

"3) Are pushes/transfers correctly documented by registrars and so make tracing of domain moves easy"

Yes.

"and do registrars cooperate with Joe Public who might enquire about these moves?"

No.

Thank you John, could you offer anything with the original general question>

"Discounting any moral responsibility for the moment, is the 3rd party legally required to return the domain at his financial loss or would he be within his rights to sell the name back or even sell it on?
Is the 3rd party stuck with the financial liability, or is it for the owner to pursue financial recovery from the thief?
Also what procedures might be followed in attempting recovery by the owner?"

Thank you.

[Mr Webname]

Bump for further assistance.

[namedropper]

Stolen property gets returned to the owner. If you want your money, you sue the thief who sold it to you. This was mentioned above.

What further assistance is needed?

[Mr Webname]

Originally posted by namedropper
Stolen property gets returned to the owner. If you want your money, you sue the thief who sold it to you. This was mentioned above.

What further assistance is needed?

Thank you, was that a qualified legal opinion, if so what about my final question?

[_Yakov_]

Originally posted by namedropper
Stolen property gets returned to the owner. If you want your money, you sue the thief who sold it to you. This was mentioned above.

What further assistance is needed?

I'd like to hear it from lawers.
Guys, agree/disagree?

[xenon]

shake ur bon bon bon i'm a desparado and dont know the rest of the song yeah! shake ur bon yeah

hahah well sorry for this shit but i didnt know what else to help out with

just a joke no need to ban me or something lol :meow:

[jberryhill]

"John, concerning #1 allow me to say that in a recent case involving dividing assets between a married couple that was divorcing, there was a first definition of domains as tangible assets that can be tagged with a property value."

...which is why a blanket property/not-property statement has no value, because it is usually the situation in law that we are concerned about whether something is *treated as* "property" in a particular context, and relating to one of the bundle of different kinds of rights one can call a "property interest" of any kind.

A family law court might determine one thing, while a bankruptcy court might determine quite another. For example, the VA state supreme court has determined that a domain name is not an asset subject to a creditor's claim in bankruptcy, for the purposes of VA state bankruptcy law. Now, as between a family law court and a bankruptcy law court, the question is which one is closer to making a determination that is more relevant to a commercial transaction context....

We are talking here about Uniform Commercial Code section 2 issues, and the question is really about whether one can obtain "good title" of a domain name if there had been prior fraud or illegality. It's a great academic question. But in dealing with hi-jacking situations, what is appropriate, effective, or practical will depend on the registrars involved, the amount of time/effort/money one is willing to risk on making an effort to get the domain name back, the circumstances of the hi-jacking, etc.

The registrars have a tremendous amount of discretion in how they deal with these situations, and working with them can be more practical than answering what amount to religious questions about domain names.

The simple answer to the question of "For all intents and purposes, have domain names been held to be property?" is "No."
As long as that answer is no, then one cannot say as a reliable proposition that any legal principle applying to property transactions will be equally valid as applied to domain names.

That's all I was trying to say in response to the confidence expressed above in connection with the notion that it is self-evident that a thief cannot pass good title. In the ongoing sex.com litigation, it is still a contended issue whether a domain name is property for the purposes of the tort of conversion.

That said....

"is the 3rd party legally required to return the domain"

Might the 3rd party be compelled to return the domain? Maybe, in the first case of its kind.

Under existing established law, is the 3rd party legally required to return the domain? Nope.

Is it usually easier to sort this out, when possible, with the registrars? Yes, which is why you don't see the overall question being answered any too often in court.

[_Yakov_]

So basicaly, John, what you say is this ?:
The 3rd party that bought a stolen domain CAN retain the domain. If it comes to the law suit, what chances do the 3rd party have in retaining the domain ?

Thank you

[Banned: CoolHost.com]

Originally posted by _Yakov_
So basicaly, John, what you say is this ?:
The 3rd party that bought a stolen domain CAN retain the domain. If it comes to the law suit, what chances do the 3rd party have in retaining the domain ?

Thank you

Yakov, I believe the "answer" is within this quote:

"We are talking here about Uniform Commercial Code section 2 issues, and the question is really about whether one can obtain "good title" of a domain name if there had been prior fraud or illegality. It's a great academic question. But in dealing with hi-jacking situations, what is appropriate, effective, or practical will depend on the registrars involved, the amount of time/effort/money one is willing to risk on making an effort to get the domain name back, the circumstances of the hi-jacking, etc.

The registrars have a tremendous amount of discretion in how they deal with these situations, and working with them can be more practical than answering what amount to religious questions about domain names."

Also, how can a party's (legal) "chances" be determined when there's no precedent?
Again, quoted ... ""Might the 3rd party be compelled to return the domain? Maybe, in the first case of its kind."

Certainly, I don't wish to misquote. Remember, I ain't no lawyer.
Informative thread, thanks!!

[jberryhill]

Predicting the probable outcome of any law suit is really a trivial task.

You see, there are two possible outcomes:

A - You win.
B - You lose.

So, either you win or you lose. That means it is a 50% chance.

I was talking to this expert biologist the other day, and I asked him, "If dogs could fly, would they lay eggs?"

He had no idea. I don't know why an expert couldn't answer a simple question like that.

It reminded me of this carpenter I know. Sometimes I can't find my hammer, so I drive nails by hitting them with a wrench. It can be difficult to drive nails that way, so I asked him, "Hey, what is the best way to drive nails with a wrench?"

He just gave me a funny look.

Now, in a situation where you had registered a domain name, someone hi-jacked the domain name, and then a third party obtained the domain name from the hi-jacker, you have to realize that none of these transactions took place without the involvement of registrars. Registrars don't really care who registers what domain, they are in business to make as much money as they can on increasingly narrowing margins, and to avoid "problems". Your third party in this situation may be very invested in having the domain name, and may want to hold on to it at all costs. But I can guarantee you that the third party's registrar has, what, a six-dollar net value contract on their hands?

Now, you tell me, *who* in this situation do you want to pursue with legal action if necessary?