Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00083/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00083-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

 The facts are taken from the Complaint and other supporting documents filed with this Court. Only relevant

facts are stated. 

- 1 - 07cv0083-BEN (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL MANN, doing business as MM

BIZ,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO.: 07cv0083-BEN (CAB)

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS FOR LACK OF

SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION [Docket No. 11]

vs.

AFN INVESTMENTS, LTD.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Michael Mann (“Mann”) brought the instant action in this Court under the

Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”) to challenge a decision rendered by the

National Arbitration Forum (“NAF”) in an administrative proceeding. In its decision, NAF

ordered Mann to transfer the domain name <LABORFORCE.COM> (“Domain Name”) to

Defendant AFN Investments, LTD. (“AFN”). Presently before the Court is AFN’s Motion to

Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, AFN’s Motion is

DENIED. 

I.

FACTS1

Mann filed his Complaint on January 11, 2007, seeking declaratory relief concerning the

Case 3:07-cv-00083-BEN-CAB Document 15 Filed 07/27/07 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 UDRP is a policy that has been adopted by all accredited domain-name registrars for domain names ending in

.com, .net, and .org. It is incorporated by reference into the Registration Agreement and sets forth terms and conditions

in connection with a dispute over any registered domain names, including a mandatory administrative proceeding. Uniform

Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm.

- 2 - 07cv0083-BEN (CAB)

Domain Name that has been ordered to be transferred to AFN by the National Arbitration Forum

pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”)2

. Mann alleges that

declaratory relief is proper under ACPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v), which allows a domain name

registrant whose domain name has been suspended, disabled, or transferred to file a civil action to

establish that the registration or use of the domain name by such registrant is not unlawful. In

support of his claim, Mann filed a “Declaration of Matthew Veling Regarding Deposit of Domain

Name into the Registry of the Court” (“Declaration”) on January 23, 2007. According to the

Declaration, the Domain Name was deposited into the registry of the Court on January 18, 2007,

by the registrar of the Domain Name. 

II.

DISCUSSION

AFN seeks to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that the

Domain Name was not transferred into the registry of the Court until seven days after the

Complaint was filed. As such, AFN argues, Mann failed to establish standing to assert its claim at

the time of its filing under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v), which requires the domain name in question

to have been suspended, disabled, or transferred. As discussed below, the Court finds AFN’s

reasoning unpersuasive. 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and only have subject matter jurisdiction

over cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States or cases where

there is diversity of citizenship between the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question

jurisdiction); 

28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction); see also Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America,

511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). To determine whether a case arises under federal law and therefore

confers federal-question jurisdiction on federal courts, a court will apply the “well-pleaded

complaint rule” and examine plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams,

Case 3:07-cv-00083-BEN-CAB Document 15 Filed 07/27/07 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 07cv0083-BEN (CAB)

482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Here, Mann’s sole claim is alleged under federal law, 

15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v). As such, his cause of action arises under federal law for purpose of

federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Sallen v. Corinthians Licenciamentos

LTDA, 273 F.3d 14, 23 (1st Cir. 2001) (finding that 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v) explicitly provides

a cause of action and that there is no question that an action arising under § 1114(2)(D)(v) arises

under federal law for purposes of § 1331). 

In fact, AFN does not dispute that Mann’s claim arises under federal law. Instead, AFN

argues that Mann lacked standing under § 1114(2)(D)(v) at the time Mann filed his Complaint

because the Domain Name was not transferred to the Court until seven days after the filing of the

Complaint. Under § 1114(2)(D)(v), “[a] domain name registrant whose domain name has been

suspended, disabled, or transferred under a policy described under clause (ii)(II) may, upon notice

to the mark owner, file a civil action to establish that the registration or use of the domain name by

such registrant is not unlawful under this Act.” UDRP is one such policy that has been recognized

to give rise to a § 1114(2)(D)(v) claim. See Barcelona.com, Inc. v. Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento de

Barcelona, 330 F.3d 617, 625 (4th Cir. 2003). Under UDRP paragraph 4(k), a domain name

registrar will implement the decision of an administrative panel unless the registrant provides the

registrar with official documentation of a complaint filed at a court with appropriate jurisdiction

within ten business days of the decision. Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy,

http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm. If such notice is received, the registrar will

take no further action until a new resolution has been reached. Id. AFN contends that the plain

language of § 1114(2)(D)(v) requires the domain name at issue to have been suspended, disabled,

or transferred in order to have standing to assert a cause of action. Mann, on the other hand, asks

the Court to interpret the § 1114(2)(D)(v) to cover situations where the domain name has been

ordered to be transferred but the actual transfer has not occurred because of the automatic stay

prescribed by UDRP paragraph 4(k). 

As the Ninth Circuit has not dealt with this issue, the Court looks to other Circuits that

have had the opportunity to address it. In Sallen, the First Circuit recognized that the domain

name was not yet transferred at the time the complaint was filed but nevertheless held that §

1114(2)(D)(v) covers situations where a transfer is inevitable unless a court action is filed. 273

Case 3:07-cv-00083-BEN-CAB Document 15 Filed 07/27/07 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 - 07cv0083-BEN (CAB)

F.3d at 25 n.11. Subsequently, the Second and Fourth Circuit joined the First Circuit in holding

that a registrant may bring an action under § 1114(2)(D)(v) so long as the domain name has been

ordered to be transferred or deactivated pursuant to UDRP even if the actual transfer or

deactivation has not occurred. See Storey v. Cello Holdings, L.L.C., 347 F.3d 370, 383 n.11 (2nd

Cir. 2003) (agreeing with the First and Fourth Circuit that “§ 1114(2)(D)(v) encompasses

situations in which a UDRP panel has ruled against a domain name and has ordered transfer or

deactivation, but in which the order has not yet been implemented because of the Paragraph 4(k)

waiting period”); Barcelona.com, 330 F.3d at 627 (recognizing that a suit for declaratory judgment

and injunctive relief under § 1114(2)(D)(v) “appears to be precisely the mechanism designed by

Congress to empower a party whose domain name is subject to a transfer order . . . to prevent the

order from being implemented”). The Court finds the other Circuits’ reasoning persuasive and

notes such ruling is in the interest of preserving scarce judicial resources. AFN agrees that if the

transfer of the Domain Name into the registry of the Court was done contemporaneously with the

filing of Mann’s Complaint, the standing requirement of § 1114(2)(D)(v) would have been

satisfied. AFN asks this Court to dismiss Mann’s Complaint without prejudice so that Mann can

do just that. However, AFN’s request will simply bring us back to where we are right now. 

Following the decisions of the First, Second, and Fourth Circuits, this Court declines to exalt form

over substance and finds the UDRP decision triggers the right to sue.

III.

 CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, Defendant AFN’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject

Matter Jurisdiction is DENIED. 

 

DATED: July 27, 2007

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00083-BEN-CAB Document 15 Filed 07/27/07 Page 4 of 4