You want an unbiased opinion?
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1125
"Public Citizen thanks Philadelphia lawyer John Berryhill for his assistance in defending this case."
Concerning the issue of international disputes and _in rem_ jurisdiction under the ACPA, it is easier to get _in rem_ jurisdiction in those international disputes than in this case, where both parties were US residents.
The piece you are missing is this requirement for _in rem_ jurisdiction under the ACPA:
http://www.law.upenn.edu/law619/f2001/week04/15_usc_1125_jurisdiction.html
"(2)(A) The owner of a mark may file an in rem civil action against a domain name in the judicial district in which the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority that registered or assigned the domain name is located if
(i) the domain name violates any right of the owner of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, or protected under subsection (a) or (c); and
(ii) the court finds that the owner--
(I) is not able to obtain in personam jurisdiction over a person who would have been a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1)"
Although the statute appears to contradict itself later on, courts have required an inability to get personal jurisdiction over the defendant as a pre-requisite to getting _in rem_ jurisdiction.
That's in fact the basis of some of the really good non-jurisdiction decisions that have come out of Virginia. In *those* actions, the plaintiff was trying to prove the *absence* of personal jurisdiction in VA, so that they could proceed _in rem_. Those decisions are now biting the ass of people who are trying to get personal jurisdiction over domain name registrants in VA.
I haven't read this particular decision yet, so I'll be interested to see how, or whether, the court deals with the Calder v. Jones "effects test" that you allude to above, George.
