Law 619 | Electronic Commerce

T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F P E N N S Y L V A N I A L A W S C H O O L

E L E C T R O N I C C O M M E R C E : V E R S I O N 2.0

MAIN MENU:	CALENDAR	SYLLABUS	DISCUSSION	ADMINISTRATION
NOTICES:	Congratulations to the Fall 2001 class for an excellent semester. eCommerce will return next year.

Personal Jurisdiction II: Transactions, Communications & Domain Names
Tuesday, September 18, 2001

R E A D I N G S

Jurisdiction Based on Transactions or Communications

To what extent does the jurisdictional inquiry change when considering not a web site, but rather the existence of online transactions or communications?

Margaret Jane Radin, John Rothchild and Gregory M. Silverman, Internet Commerce: Doing Business in a Networked World (2001) [excerpts from Chapter 16] [pdf, 61 kb]

Jurisdiction Over Domain Names

The rise in disputes over domain names engendered Congressional action, in the form of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), which we'll study in detail later in the course. For now, we'll consider the special jurisdictional provisions of the ACPA:

excerpts, 15 U.S.C. 1125 (2000).

N O T E S & Q U E S T I O N S

1. Geography, again. Revisit the section on geographic location we considered in the last class. Are the same principles and suggestions equally relevant to transactions and communications? Why or why not? Again, are we merely concerned with fairness, or with something else?

2. Communications, Culture and the 'Net. It seems unlikely that many (if any) people understand the scope of Internet-based communications. Should this have a bearing on the scope of jurisdiction? What factors should have a bearing?

3. Domain Names, part I. Why do you think Congress passed the "in rem" provisions of the ACPA? What problems were they seeking to solve? What are the limitations of bringing an "in rem" action? Is this avenue a useful way of overcoming problems with gaining jurisdiction over an Internet entity, or is it instead limited to specific situations? In this light, note that in Harrods, Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11911 (E.D. Va. Aug. 15, 2000), the court dismissed all causes of action not based on the ACPA (claims based on trademark violations, primarily) and held that 15 U.S.C. § 1125 required the plea of an element of "bad faith" (as defined in that section) to properly invoke the "in rem" jurisdiction provisions.

4. Domain Names, part 2. More generally, does it makes sense to view domain names as a form of property, akin to real property? Is it really accurate to say that a domain name "exists" in a specific geographic location? Note that in an era of multiple registration authorities, it should be possible to switch the location of the "in rem" jurisdiction essentially at will. Does this undermine what appears to be the intent of the ACPA?

[ notes ]
[ pageprints ]
[ audio ]