Office Depot, Inc. v. Zuccarini

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that under California law, at least for the purpose of quasi in rem jurisdiction, domain names are located where the domain name registry is located
• holding that “domain names are located where the registry is located for the purpose of asserting quasi in rem jurisdiction” and seeing “no reason why for that purpose domain names are not also located where the relevant registrar is located”
• stating that ICANN “shall submit its recommendations” regarding delegation or re-delegation of a ccTLD to the Contracting Officer’s Representative, i.e. a U.S. government official
• stating that “[ajlthough the current proceeding is not an action under the ACPA, the statute is authority for the proposition that domain names are personal property located wherever the registry or the registrar are located.”
• “A single piece of intangible property may be located in multiple places for some purposes.” (citing Curry v. McCanless, 307 U.S. 357, 367–68 (1939))
• “In an action to execute on a judgment, due process concerns are satisfied, assuming proper notice, by the previous rendering of a judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).