Dynadot
Namecheap

Constantin S

Top Contributor
Impact
5,898
Sources:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...com-from-man-whos-had-it-since-94-so-he-sues/
I also seen this on 1st page of Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/8frmzc/france_seizes_francecom_from_man_whos_had_it/

EDIT: I see people wondering who's crazy to use web.com/NetworkSolutions, this should answer your question: :)
https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/networksolutions.com#trafficstats
 
Last edited:

Max1000

Established Member
Impact
70
I can't even believe web.com were so gutless as to just rollover on the letter from the french attorneys at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4446110-Notification-20letter-20domain-20name-20-France.html.

I've had stronger letters from Debt collectors about parking fines I'd forgotten.

And $150 a day fines for a major company? SCARY. :xf.eek: And that applicable only after two months following service of the decision!

Only thing I don't understand is why the original owner isn't including web.com in the list of Defendants in his counter-lawsuit; https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/france-com.pdf; seems to me they had the contractual relationship with him and breached it by not even informing him before they turned it over.

But then - wadoino
 
Last edited:

Max1000

Established Member
Impact
70
I imagine there are some people on these boards who are pretty major players and quite wealthy; if they wanted to help fight this in the general interests of Domain holders everywhere, I suspect there'd be an action they could help fund the original domain owner against web.com for breach of contract seeking multi-$M damages. Pour encourager les autres....
 

jberryhill

Top Member
John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq.
Impact
5,325
What does @jberryhill think of this?

I've been fairly busy lately.

The circumstances around this, as I understand them, are a little more complicated than are generally appreciated. On the question of "How does a French court get jurisdiction over a US registrant?" the answer is pretty simple - "If the US registrant agrees to it." What happened here initially is that a private company in France, which also claimed certain rights, sued the US registrant in France.

When you are in the US and you are sued in a foreign country, and that foreign country is in the relevant treaty system for international enforcement of judgments, you initially have two choices. One is that you can let the foreign proceeding go, not appear in that proceeding, and then challenge US enforcement of the judgment if, for example, the exercise of jurisdiction over you in that foreign proceeding would not satisfy US standards. The other choice would be to go ahead and show up in that foreign proceeding and participate in the case there.

The thing is, if you take that second route, then when US enforcement of that judgment against you is sought, you can't argue that the foreign court didn't have jurisdiction over you. By showing up in the foreign proceeding on the substance of the case, you admitted to the jurisdiction of that court.

So that first decision needs to be made on the basis of whether you believe it would be more efficient to mount a collateral challenge against a default judgment in the US, whether your activities underlying the suit would satisfy a US court's standard of whether the foreign jurisdiction was appropriate, and a few other things.

So, where are we? Oh, okay... the private company in France filed a lawsuit in France against the US registrant in relation to the domain name. The US registrant decided to go ahead and participate in that lawsuit. But, the unexpected twist was that the French government later joined the lawsuit as a party and essentially argued "neither of those two parties are entitled to the domain name, we are." In France, as in many European countries, the relevant laws on geographic names are unlike those in the US. So, on the substance of the claim by the French government, the court decided in the government's favor.

Coming back to the question of "How did a French court get jurisdiction over this?" the simple answer is that the registrant subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the court. That's the simple answer. The more complicated answer is... more complicated.

HOWEVER, none of that has anything to do with the propriety of Web.com's decision to act on notice of a French court decision directing transfer of the domain name. I am not directly familiar with the specific form of the order, but while the court could have directed, say, the registrant to transfer the domain name (or risk whatever penalties or further expenses that may accrue from not doing so, or mounting a collateral challenge), that would be up to the registrant to comply, not comply, or challenge. Web.com was not before the court, and it is not my understanding that Web.com was ordered to transfer the domain name by the court. The domain name registration contract, by its own terms, states that it is a contract with a situs in Florida. Whether the French court had jurisdiction over the domain name itself (as opposed to the registrant) is an entirely different kettle of fish.
 

MAG WEB DESIGNS

Established Member
Impact
32
I've been fairly busy lately.

The circumstances around this, as I understand them, are a little more complicated than are generally appreciated. On the question of "How does a French court get jurisdiction over a US registrant?" the answer is pretty simple - "If the US registrant agrees to it." What happened here initially is that a private company in France, which also claimed certain rights, sued the US registrant in France.

When you are in the US and you are sued in a foreign country, and that foreign country is in the relevant treaty system for international enforcement of judgments, you initially have two choices. One is that you can let the foreign proceeding go, not appear in that proceeding, and then challenge US enforcement of the judgment if, for example, the exercise of jurisdiction over you in that foreign proceeding would not satisfy US standards. The other choice would be to go ahead and show up in that foreign proceeding and participate in the case there.

The thing is, if you take that second route, then when US enforcement of that judgment against you is sought, you can't argue that the foreign court didn't have jurisdiction over you. By showing up in the foreign proceeding on the substance of the case, you admitted to the jurisdiction of that court.

So that first decision needs to be made on the basis of whether you believe it would be more efficient to mount a collateral challenge against a default judgment in the US, whether your activities underlying the suit would satisfy a US court's standard of whether the foreign jurisdiction was appropriate, and a few other things.

So, where are we? Oh, okay... the private company in France filed a lawsuit in France against the US registrant in relation to the domain name. The US registrant decided to go ahead and participate in that lawsuit. But, the unexpected twist was that the French government later joined the lawsuit as a party and essentially argued "neither of those two parties are entitled to the domain name, we are." In France, as in many European countries, the relevant laws on geographic names are unlike those in the US. So, on the substance of the claim by the French government, the court decided in the government's favor.

Coming back to the question of "How did a French court get jurisdiction over this?" the simple answer is that the registrant subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the court. That's the simple answer. The more complicated answer is... more complicated.

HOWEVER, none of that has anything to do with the propriety of Web.com's decision to act on notice of a French court decision directing transfer of the domain name. I am not directly familiar with the specific form of the order, but while the court could have directed, say, the registrant to transfer the domain name (or risk whatever penalties or further expenses that may accrue from not doing so, or mounting a collateral challenge), that would be up to the registrant to comply, not comply, or challenge. Web.com was not before the court, and it is not my understanding that Web.com was ordered to transfer the domain name by the court. The domain name registration contract, by its own terms, states that it is a contract with a situs in Florida. Whether the French court had jurisdiction over the domain name itself (as opposed to the registrant) is an entirely different kettle of fish.

In persona jurisdiction? If one would respond with a " refusal for cause" due to lack of Jurisdiction of the presiding court over a non resident citizen? Would that be an acceptance of jurisdiction? Cause Lack of challenge of under UCC is considered consent?
 

jberryhill

Top Member
John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq.
Impact
5,325
I'm not sure I understand your questions, and don't have a lot of time on my hands at the moment. If you are asking whether the appearance in the foreign court was for the purpose of challenging jurisdiction, then the jurisdictional issue can be maintained in a collateral challenge in the US. Those were not the facts here, in my possibly limited understanding of them.
 

MAG WEB DESIGNS

Established Member
Impact
32
I'm not sure I understand your questions, and don't have a lot of time on my hands at the moment. If you are asking whether the appearance in the foreign court was for the purpose of challenging jurisdiction, then the jurisdictional issue can be maintained in a collateral challenge in the US. Those were not the facts here, in my possibly limited understanding of them.

Just jumping in the waters here too :) Just sayin if the average JOE SHMOE is said to be in breach of contract from another country. If JOE SHMOE even responds with say a R4C because that country has no legal standing. Is that just the same as actually being in Persona on board their ship?

Then I had another branch of thought. Becaue If JOE SHMOE is in fact not a sovereign but the asset of another sovereign. How can France risk an act of war by stealing intellectual property from a subsidiary of a Sovereign?

Id post that little French guy with the hat if it would let me.
 

jberryhill

Top Member
John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq.
Impact
5,325
Mag, reading between the lines of your comments and the capitalization of JOE SHMOE, would I be correct in assuming that you are one of those persons who subscribes to sovereign citizen legal buffoonery?

No, citizens of the US are not "agents for an entity named (whatever)", capitalization of letters doesn't mean a damned thing, and the US government does not obtain a security interest in your "entity named whatever" by the fact of your having a birth certificate.

 
Last edited:

MAG WEB DESIGNS

Established Member
Impact
32
Mag, reading between the lines of your comments and the capitalization of JOE SHMOE, would I be correct in assuming that you are one of those persons who subscribes to sovereign citizen legal buffoonery?

No, citizens of the US are not "agents for an entity named (whatever)", capitalization of letters doesn't mean a damned thing, and the US government does not obtain a security interest in your "entity named whatever" by the fact of your having a birth certificate.

Sovereign citizen is an oxymoron. I think you get my point they can't have it both ways.
Smart counsel would would own those noobs.
 

iAchilles

Top Contributor
Impact
1,553
France owns an entire TLD in .fr.. horrible precedent.

Agreed but they do have a fine president.

I'm sure he had offers for the domain throughout the years and should have sold it when he had the opportunity. Now, he just has to move on.

Huh? If the owner's experience dealing with the French with domain names I think it's likely more accurate that he has gotten hundreds of insulting offers on the domain.

The French have a strange sense of entitlement with domain names that relate to their business or country, which probably stems from the old Cliche that they are arrogant, it's an unfortunate truth about France. Everything they do is best and they are one of the worst cultures for ethnocentric views.

it's something I come across regularly with end users all over the world, but with the French 9/10 inquiries and responses have a piss poor attitude (I'm half French btw).

I wanted to get rid of a domain I have which is the name of a town, I offered it to a local who had booked several related names, he was interested but said I was unreasonable for my mid $xxx asking price.

I tend to avoid the French market these days as far as domains are concerned.
 
Last edited:
Impact
8,515
No update I guess!

Interview of last year:

“Krishnamurthy says perhaps the most galling actor in this case is not France, but the domain registration company Web.com. It was not part of the French court ruling, and it does not operate in France. Frydman and Krishnamurthy repeatedly notified the company ahead of time — when France comes knocking and says "turn over this domain name," don't do that.”

"Don't do that because it's not consistent with U.S. law. Don't do that because Frydman's been your loyal customer for 24 years. And, at the very least, don't do that without notifying Frydman first," said Krishnamurthy. "Ultimately, they flunked all three. I think it just speaks very ill of the company."

Web.com declined to be interviewed for this story.

https://www.wlrn.org/post/france-seized-francecom-miami-man-suing-get-it-back
 
Impact
5,431
Thanks for this bud. But, I’m still trying to figure out the outcome of suing to get the domain back case... more on that front?

Interview of last year:

“Krishnamurthy says perhaps the most galling actor in this case is not France, but the domain registration company Web.com. It was not part of the French court ruling, and it does not operate in France. Frydman and Krishnamurthy repeatedly notified the company ahead of time — when France comes knocking and says "turn over this domain name," don't do that.”

"Don't do that because it's not consistent with U.S. law. Don't do that because Frydman's been your loyal customer for 24 years. And, at the very least, don't do that without notifying Frydman first," said Krishnamurthy. "Ultimately, they flunked all three. I think it just speaks very ill of the company."

Web.com declined to be interviewed for this story.

https://www.wlrn.org/post/france-seized-francecom-miami-man-suing-get-it-back
 
Impact
8,515
Thanks for this bud. But, I’m still trying to figure out the outcome of suing to get the domain back case... more on that front?

No, this is really all in mainstream media. I didn’t look deep for further continuations of the court case though. There could be though. This is very costly to fight legally, especially an entire Foreign Government, not sure if he continuing on. I will keep looking.
 

jberryhill

Top Member
John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq.
Impact
5,325
I didn’t look deep for further continuations of the court case

The docket is online.....

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6376550/francecom-inc-v-the-french-republic/

The last several events are:

01/09/2019 16 ORDER granting 14 Motion to Amend/Correct. ORDERED that the Clerk shall amend the response deadline in the Summons for Defendant the French Republic to 60 days. ORDERED that the Clerk issue a Summons for Defendant the French Republic with the 60-day response deadline. Signed by Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis on 1/9/19. (klau, ) (Entered: 01/09/2019)

01/09/2019 17 ALIAS Summons Issued as to The French Republic. NOTICE TO ATTORNEY: Print out two electronically issued summons and one copy of the attachments for each defendant to be served with the complaint. (Attachments: # 1 Notice)(klau, ) (Entered: 01/09/2019)

04/04/2019 18 Affidavit Returned Executed of Alias Summons as to The French Republic served on 3/5/2019, answer due 5/6/2019 (klau, ) (klau, ). (Entered: 04/05/2019)

The suit was served on the defendant March 5 by diplomatic letter, but I haven't checked whether that is the correct process. Having sued France in other matters, we usually did straightforward Hague Convention process.

Be that as it may, a foreign defendant has 60 days to reply, which would have been May 6. As that is a Saturday, their answer is due today. If they have answered, then it may wash up on the docket tomorrow.
 
Top Bottom