Kremen v. Cohen

Decision Date16 April 2007
Docket NumberNo. 01-15899.,01-15899.
Citation337 F.3d 1024
PartiesGary KREMEN, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Online Classifieds, Inc., a Delaware Company, Plaintiff, v. Stephen Michael COHEN, an individual; Ocean Fund International, Ltd., a foreign company; Sand Man Internacional Ltd., a foreign company; Sporting Houses Management Corporation, a Nevada company; Sporting Houses of America, a Nevada company; Sporting Houses General Inc., a Nevada company; William Douglas, Sir, an individual; VP Bank (BVI) Limited, a foreign company; Andrew Keuls, an individual; Montano Properties LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; Ynata Ltd., Defendant, and Network Solutions, Inc., a Delaware company, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

James M. Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for the appellant. Pamela Urueta and Alex K. Grab joined him on the briefs.

Kathryn E. Karcher, Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich LLP, San Diego, CA, argued for the appellee. David Henry Dolkas and Mira A. Macias joined her on the briefs.

Professor Brian E. Gray, San Francisco, California, amicus curiae in support of the appellant.

William H. Bode, Bode & Grenier, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae American Internet Registrants Association in support of the appellant.

Robin D. Gross, Electronic Frontier Foundation, San Francisco, California, amicus curiae in support of the appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; James Ware, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-98-20718-JW.

Before: KOZINSKI and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and FITZGERALD,** District Judge.

KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge.

We decide whether Network Solutions may be liable for giving away a registrant's domain name on the basis of a forged letter.

Background

"Sex on the Internet?," they all said. "That'll never make any money." But computer-geek-turned-entrepreneur Gary Kremen knew an opportunity when he saw it. The year was 1994; domain names were free for the asking, and it would be several years yet before Henry Blodget and hordes of eager NASDAQ day traders would turn the Internet into the Dutch tulip craze of our times. With a quick e-mail to the domain name registrar Network Solutions, Kremen became the proud owner of sex.com. He registered the name to his business, Online Classifieds, and listed himself as the contact.1

Con man Stephen Cohen, meanwhile, was doing time for impersonating a bankruptcy lawyer. He, too, saw the potential of the domain name. Kremen had gotten it first, but that was only a minor impediment for a man of Cohen's boundless resource and bounded integrity. Once out of prison, he sent Network Solutions what purported to be a letter he had received from Online Classifieds. It claimed the company had been "forced to dismiss Mr. Kremen," but "never got around to changing our administrative contact with the internet registration [sic] and now our Board of directors has decided to abandon the domain name sex.com." Why was this unusual letter being sent via Cohen rather than to Network Solutions directly? It explained:

Because we do not have a direct connection to the internet, we request that you notify the internet registration on our behalf, to delete our domain name sex.com. Further, we have no objections to your use of the domain name sex.com and this letter shall serve as our authorization to the internet registration to transfer sex.com to your corporation.2

Despite the letter's transparent claim that a company called "Online Classifieds" had no Internet connection, Network Solutions made no effort to contact Kremen. Instead, it accepted the letter at face value and transferred the domain name to Cohen. When Kremen contacted Network Solutions some time later, he was told it was too late to undo the transfer. Cohen went on to turn sex.com into a lucrative online porn empire.

And so began Kremen's quest to recover the domain name that was rightfully his. He sued Cohen and several affiliated companies in federal court, seeking return of the domain name and disgorgement of Cohen's profits. The district court found that the letter was indeed a forgery and ordered the domain name returned to Kremen. It also told Cohen to hand over his profits, invoking the constructive trust doctrine and California's "unfair competition" statute, Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 17200 et seq. It awarded $40 million in compensatory damages and another $25 million in punitive damages.3

Kremen, unfortunately, has not had much luck collecting his judgment. The district court froze Cohen's assets, but Cohen ignored the order and wired large sums of money to offshore accounts. His real estate property, under the protection of a federal receiver, was stripped of all its fixtures — even cabinet doors and toilets — in violation of another order. The court commanded Cohen to appear and show cause why he shouldn't be held in contempt, but he ignored that order, too. The district judge finally took off the gloves — he declared Cohen a fugitive from justice, signed an arrest warrant and sent the U.S. Marshals after him.

Then things started getting really bizarre. Kremen put up a "wanted" poster on the sex.com site with a mug shot of Cohen, offering a $50,000 reward to anyone who brought him to justice. Cohen's lawyers responded with a motion to vacate the arrest warrant. They reported that Cohen was under house arrest in Mexico and that gunfights between Mexican authorities and would-be bounty hunters seeking Kremen's reward money posed a threat to human life. The district court rejected this story as "implausible" and denied the motion. Cohen, so far as the record shows, remains at large.

Given his limited success with the bounty hunter approach, it should come as no surprise that Kremen seeks to hold someone else responsible for his losses. That someone is Network Solutions, the exclusive domain name registrar at the time of Cohen's antics. Kremen sued it for mishandling his domain name, invoking four theories at issue here. He argues that he had an implied contract with Network Solutions, which it breached by giving the domain name to Cohen. He also claims the transfer violated Network Solutions's cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation — the government contract that made Network Solutions the .com registrar. His third theory is that he has a property right in the domain name sex.com, and Network Solutions committed the tort of conversion by giving it away to Cohen. Finally, he argues that Network Solutions was a "bailee" of his domain name and seeks to hold it liable for "conversion by bailee."

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Network Solutions on all claims. Kremen v. Cohen, 99 F.Supp.2d 1168 (N.D.Cal.2000). It held that Kremen had no implied contract with Network Solutions because there was no consideration: Kremen had registered the domain name for free. Id. at 1171-72. It rejected the third-party contract claim on the ground that the cooperative agreement did not indicate a clear intent to grant enforceable contract rights to registrants. Id. at 1172.

The conversion claims fared no better. The court agreed that sex.com was Kremen's property. It concluded, though, that it was intangible property to which the tort of conversion does not apply. Id. at 1173. The conversion by bailee claim failed for the additional reason that Network Solutions was not a bailee. Id. at 1175.

Kremen appeals, and we consider each of his four theories in turn.

Breach of Contract

Kremen had no express contract with Network Solutions, but argues that his registration created an implied contract, which Network Solutions breached. A defendant is normally not liable for breach of contract, however, if he promised to do something for free. The party claiming breach must show that, in return for the promise, it conferred some benefit the other party was not already entitled to receive, or suffered some prejudice it was not already bound to endure. Cal. Civ. Code § 1605.4 The adequacy of consideration doesn't matter, but it must be "something of real value." Herbert v. Lankershim, 9 Cal.2d 409, 475, 71 P.2d 220 (1937) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Kremen did not pay Network Solutions or exchange some other property in return for his domain name. Nor did his registration increase the amount of money Network Solutions received from the National Science Foundation; under the cooperative agreement, Network Solutions was paid on a fixed-fee basis. The cooperative agreement did contemplate that Network Solutions might one day charge fees. Kremen seizes on this fact and claims he conferred a benefit on Network Solutions by becoming a customer "at a time when [it] was eager to expand its customer base."

The problem with this theory is that Kremen was a nonpaying customer, so his status as a registrant was valuable only because of the possibility he might stick around if Network Solutions started charging fees. Kremen was under no obligation to do so. He was in the same position as one who promises to do something but reserves the right to change his mind. See, e.g., County of Alameda v. Ross, 32 Cal.App.2d 135, 143-44, 89 P.2d 460 (1939); 1 Witkin Contracts § 234. He might have become a paying customer or he might not; the choice was up to him once Network Solutions started charging fees. As many Internet investors found out the hard way, "[mere] ... hope of profit is not consideration." Williams v. Hasshagen, 166 Cal. 386, 390, 137 P. 9 (1913).

Kremen argues that he gave Network Solutions valuable marketing data by submitting his contact information when he registered the domain name. But there is no evidence that Network Solutions sought the data as part of its benefit of the bargain. See Bard v. Kent, 19 Cal.2d 449, 452, 122 P.2d 8 (1942). It collected only information reasonably necessary to complete...

To continue reading

Request your trial
176 cases
  • Erhart v. Bofi Holding, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • March 31, 2020
    ...and prerogative susceptible of possession or disposition.'" Id. at 211 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Kremen v. Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir. 2003)); see also Lepe, 140 Cal. App. 4th at 860 (reasoning one's personal identifying information can be "a valuable asset"). The......
  • Erhart v. Bofi Holding, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • April 30, 2019
    ...of possession or disposition.’ " Id. at 211, 166 Cal.Rptr.3d 877 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Kremen v. Cohen , 337 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir. 2003) ); see also CTC Real Estate Servs. v. Lepe , 140 Cal. App. 4th 856, 860, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 823 (2006) (noting that one's personal i......
  • United States v. Mongol Nation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • February 28, 2019
    ...possession or control; and third, the putative owner must have established a legitimate claim to exclusivity." Kremen v. Cohen , 337 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir. 2003). The collective membership marks in gross may fail on the second prong.The POF is the first step in a forced transfer of the c......
  • M.D. v. Claudio
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • May 14, 2010
    ...not akin to a certificate of ownership but rather serves as a medium for one instantiation of its authors' work. See Kremen v. Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024, 1032 (9th Cir.2003) (noting that “an intangible intellectual property right in a song is not merged in a phonograph record in the sense that t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Conversion of E-Data
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • December 13, 2007
    ...Inc. v. Vacuum Metallurgical Co. Ltd., 684 A.2d 1322, 1324 (Maine 1996)), the trend is with Thyroff. For example, in Kremen v. Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024, 1031 (9th Cir. 2003), the 9th Circuit held that California "does not follow the Restatement's strict merger requirement" in upholding a conver......
3 books & journal articles
  • How Community Property Jurisdictions Can Avoid Being Lost in Cyberspace
    • United States
    • Louisiana Law Review No. 72-1, October 2011
    • October 1, 2011
    ...list of domain name registrars is available at http://www.internic.net/ regist.html (last visited May 9, 2011). See also Kremen v. Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024, 1029-30 (9th Cir. 2003) (establishing a property right in registering a domain name); CRS Recovery, Inc. v. Laxton, 600 F.3d 1138, 1143 (9......
  • Testing the jurisdictional limits of the international investment regime: the blocking of social media and Internet censorship.
    • United States
    • Denver Journal of International Law and Policy Vol. 40 No. 1-3, December - December 2011
    • December 22, 2011
    ...Defining and Addressing Virtual Property in International Treaties, 17 B.U.J. SCI. & TECH. L. 101, 109 (2011). (72.) Kremen v. Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding that domain names are intangible property); see also OBG Ltd v. Allan (2007) UKHL 21, 1 A.C. 1, 32 (separate......
  • MAKING VIRTUAL THINGS.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 64 No. 4, March 2023
    • March 1, 2023
    ...from ownership of the copyright."). (126.) See Fairfield, supra note 3, at 1298. (127.) Fairfield, supra note 11, at 11-12. (128.) 337 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir. 2003) ("Property is a broad concept that includes 'every intangible benefit and prerogative susceptible of possession or dispositi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT