Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact
  • Advertise
  • Awards
  • Privacy Policy
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact
  • Advertise
  • Awards
  • Privacy Policy
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS
TheDomains.com

Breaking News: British Court Refuses To Enforce Kentucky Domain Seizure Order

October 21, 2009 by Michael Berkens

In a court ruling out of the UK, a British court has ruled against the Commonwealth of Kentucky’s attempt to seize gambling domains.

As you will just over a year ago, before the TRAFFIC NY 2008 show, the the Commonwealth of Kentucky sent a seizure order to the registrars of 141 gambling domain names, demanding that those domains be forfeited to Kentucky.  The 141 domains ranged from parked domains, to some of the biggest gambling sites on the Internet.

Pocket Kings Limited which owns the domain and gambling site,  Fulltiltpoker.com bought a suit seeking declaratory relief against its registrar Safenames Limited (“Safenames”), and the Commonwealth of Kentucky (note that Safenames.com did NOT turn over the domain to Kentucky).

The British Court ruled that it would not recognize or enforce the orders currently made in the Kentucky proceedings or any subsequent order for the seizure or forfeiture of the domain name.

“English courts have no jurisdiction to entertain an action (I) for the enforcement either directly or indirectly of a penal, revenue or other public law of a foreign state or (2) founded upon an act of state.”

“”So far as I am aware there is no authority on the question whether the forfeiture of assets used in the commission of a crime under local law is to be regarded as penal for the purpose of this rule. Regardless of the categorization of this type of forfeiture as a civil remedy under US law, it seems to me to be a provision distinctly penal in nature, requiring as it does the confiscation without compensation of an asset, on the ground that the owner, or at least the user of it, has been guilty of a criminal offense.

“”I therefore conclude that the Kentucky proceedings are not enforceable in English law as being penal or governmental in nature. It is not therefore necessary for me to consider whether the Kentucky proceedings breached the principles of natural justice.”””

It should be noted that, although Kentucky was served with notice of the proceedings in the British court, they failed to either appear or to submit any brief or other writing argument in the case.

Bottom line if you have your gambling domain registered with Safenames, rest assured, the British court is not going to uphold the seizure order of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Nice ruling.

We discussed this last year, having your domains with a non-US registrar can afford you additional protections in some unique situations (although many US registrars have not complied with the seizure order as of yet either, including Moniker.com).

Back in the good old USA, the Kentucky Court of Appeals overturned the seizure order in January, but the Commonwealth appealed to the Kentucky Supreme Court which was to hear oral arguments of the case this month.

Share
Share on Facebook
Share
Share this
Share
Share on Google Plus

Filed Under: Domains, Legal

About Michael Berkens

Michael Berkens, Esq. is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TheDomains.com. Michael is also the co-founder of Worldwide Media Inc. which sold around 70K domain to Godaddy.com in December 2015 and now owns around 8K domain names . Michael was also one of the 5 Judges selected for the the Verisign 30th Anniversary .Com contest.

« The Worst Extension Of All Time Looks Like A Go: .Post
Real Time Tweets & FaceBook Updates Coming To Search & Its Not Google (yet) »

Comments

  1. BullS says

    October 21, 2009 at 3:09 pm

    Go Brits!!!

    Stupid stupid USA—online gambling and marijuana could be the biggest revenue source.

    The Indian Casinos are the ones killing the online gambling—more arrows for them.

    Register all the gambling domains in Macau and you will be safe!!!

  2. D says

    October 21, 2009 at 11:11 pm

    Well problem with .com/.net/.org is that it is in US jurisdiction and the domains can be seized at registry level. They should run the operation on co.uk domain and .com own via some another entity and makete there just link “Looking for this ? Go to this.co.uk”

  3. MHB says

    October 21, 2009 at 11:33 pm

    D

    Possibly but the Commonwealth did not go to the registry with this order

  4. Cartoonz says

    October 21, 2009 at 11:50 pm

    “Well problem with .com/.net/.org is that it is in US jurisdiction and the domains can be seized at registry level.”

    common thought – but show me a case where that has actually been done.

  5. BidNo says

    October 22, 2009 at 11:46 pm

    A particularly salient point is “Regardless of the categorization of this type of forfeiture as a civil remedy under US law, it seems to me to be a provision distinctly penal in nature, requiring as it does the confiscation without compensation of an asset, on the ground that the owner, or at least the user of it, has been guilty of a criminal offense.”

    Exactly! Should people lose their cars when they get a speeding ticket? And what has happened to property rights under US/ICANN rules? They’ve become totally warped by big money fueling an overactive group of IP lawyers and lobbyists. It’s become the Golden Rule, “those with the most gold make the rules.”


Recent Articles

  • Sedo weekly domain names sales led by Bookz.com
  • Rick is older than the Pope!
  • The Greatest Domain Stories of all time – Part 1

Recent Comments

  • Peter on Rick is older than the Pope!
  • Jay on Rick is older than the Pope!
  • John on The Greatest Domain Stories of all time – Part 1
  • Francois on Rick Schwartz details every domain he has acquired since 2022
  • Zip on Rick Schwartz details every domain he has acquired since 2022

Categories

Archives