Opinion ID: 614071
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Gopets.com

Text: GoPets Ltd. concedes that the gopets.com domain name was not identical or confusingly similar to a protected mark when Edward Hise registered it in 1999. GoPets Ltd. contends, however, that the term registration in ACPA includes re-registrations as well as initial registrations. It contends that the re-registration of the domain name by Digital Overture in December 2006, after Edward Hise transferred it, was a registration within the meaning of § 1125(d)(1). Since the service mark GoPets was distinctive in 2006, Go-Pets Ltd. argues that the 2006 re-registration violated ACPA. The district court agreed with GoPets Ltd.'s argument that a re-registration is a registration within the meaning of § 1125(d)(1). For the reasons that follow, we disagree with the district court. We have previously explained: [T]here are three primary actors in the domain name system. First, companies called registries operate a database (or registry) for all domain names within the scope of their authority [e.g., all .com, .net, .gov, etc. domain names]. Second, companies called registrars register domain names with registries on behalf of those who own the names. Registrars maintain an ownership record for each domain name they have registered with a registry. Action by a registrar is needed to transfer ownership of a domain name from one registrant to another. Third, individuals and companies called registrants own the domain names. Registrants interact with the registrars, who in turn interact with the registries. Office Depot Inc. v. Zuccarini, 596 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir.2010). When an individual registrant registers a domain name, she pays the registrar a fee and gives the registrar a registrant name, along with contact, billing, and technical information. The words registration and register are not defined in ACPA. It is obvious that, under any reasonable definition, the initial contract with the registrar constitutes a registration under ACPA. It is less obvious which later actions, if any, are also registrations. After registering, a registrant can take a variety of actions that modify the registration. For instance, the registrant can update the registration if her contact or billing information changes. She can switch to private registration, where a third party's name is substituted for hers in the public databases of domain registrants. She can switch between registrars, but leave her contact and billing information unchanged. A registrant can change the name of the registrant without changing who pays for the domain, or a registrant can transfer both the domain and payment responsibilities to someone else. Even if the registrant does none of these things, she must still renew the registration periodically. All of these actions could conceivably be described as registrations within the meaning of § 1125(d)(1). Only one other circuit has addressed the question of re-registrations under ACPA. In Schmidheiny v. Weber, 319 F.3d 581 (3d Cir.2003), Steven Weber registered the domain name schmidheiny.com in February 1999. Stephan Schmidheiny is one of the wealthiest men in the world. ACPA became law in November 1999. In June 2000, Weber transferred ownership of the domain name to a corporation of which he was the president and treasurer. The corporation then re-registered the domain name with a different registrar. In November 2000, Weber offered to sell the domain name, now owned by the corporation, to Stephan Schmidheiny. Id. at 581-82. At issue in Schmidheiny was a registration under 15 U.S.C. § 8131(1)(A) (then § 1129(1)(A)). Section 8131(1)(A) prohibits registration of domain names that are the names of, or that are substantially and confusingly similar to the names of, living persons. Like § 1125(d)(1), § 8131(1)(A) refers to registration without defining the term. The district court had held that re-registering the domain name to the corporation was not a registration within the meaning of § 8131(1)(A). Id. at 582. The Third Circuit disagreed, holding that the word `registration' includes a new contract at a different registrar and to a different registrant. Id. at 583. The Third Circuit assumed that Weber's initial registration of schmidheiny.com was not covered by § 8131(1)(A) because it had been made before the passage of ACPA. See id. at 581-82. Based on that assumption, the Third Circuit was concerned that holding that re-registration was not registration within the meaning of ACPA would permit the domain names of living persons to be sold and purchased without the living persons' consent, ad infinitum, so long as the name was first registered before the effective date of the Act. Id. However, we believe that the Third Circuit erred in assuming that Weber's initial registration was not covered by ACPA. We agree with the holding of the Second Circuit in Sporty's Farm that § 1125(d)(1) and, by extension, § 8131(1)(A)apply to registrations made before the passage of ACPA. See Sporty's Farm, 202 F.3d at 496-97. If Weber's initial registration violated § 8131(1)(A), as we would hold it did, the Third Circuit's concern evaporates. Like the text of § 8131(1)(A), the text of § 1125(d)(1) considered in isolation does not answer the question whether registration includes re-registration. Looking at ACPA in light of traditional property law, however, we conclude that Congress meant registration to refer only to the initial registration. It is undisputed that Edward Hise could have retained all of his rights to gopets.com indefinitely if he had maintained the registration of the domain name in his own name. We see no basis in ACPA to conclude that a right that belongs to an initial registrant of a currently registered domain name is lost when that name is transferred to another owner. The general rule is that a property owner may sell all of the rights he holds in property. GoPets Ltd.'s proposed rule would make rights to many domain names effectively inalienable, whether the alienation is by gift, inheritance, sale, or other form of transfer. Nothing in the text or structure of the statute indicates that Congress intended that rights in domain names should be inalienable. We therefore hold that Digital Overture's re-registration of gopets.com was not a registration within the meaning of § 1125(d)(1). Because Edward Hise registered gopets.com in 1999, long before GoPets Ltd. registered its service mark, Digital Overture's re-registration and continued ownership of gopets.com does not violate § 1125(d)(1).