Solid Host, Nl v. Namecheap, Inc.
Decision Date | 19 May 2009 |
Docket Number | Case No. CV 08-5414 MMM (Ex). |
Citation | 652 F.Supp.2d 1092 |
Parties | SOLID HOST, NL, Plaintiff, v. NAMECHEAP, INC., a Delaware Corp. d/b/a Namecheap and Whois Guard Protected; Demand Media, Inc., a Washington Corp. with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, d/b/a eNom, and John Doe 1, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
G. Randall Garrou, John H. Weston, Weston Garrou Walters and Mooney, Los Angeles, CA, Marc J. Randazza, Weston Garrou Walters and Mooney, Altamonte Springs, FL, for Plaintiff.
Eugene Rome, Rome & Associates APC, Los Angeles, CA, Frank E. Merideth, Jr., Gregory A. Nylen, Wendy M. Mantell, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Santa Monica, CA, for Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT NAMECHEAP'S MOTION TO DISMISS
On August 17, 2008, plaintiff Solid Host, NL filed this action against defendants NameCheap, Inc., dba Whois Guard Protected; Demand Media, Inc., dba eNom, Inc.; and John Doe 1.1 Solid Host alleges that Doe "hijacked" its domain name,
This action requires knowledge of certain of the technical aspects of registering domain names for internet web sites. The court will briefly summarize this technical background before outlining the facts of the case.
The location of individual sites on the internet is denoted by an internet protocol ("IP") address composed of a string of four groups of digits separated by periods. Each site has a unique numeric internet address. Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Network Solutions, Inc., 141 F.Supp.2d 648, 650-51 (N.D.Tex.2001) ("Lockheed Martin II"); see also Smith v. Network Solutions, Inc., 135 F.Supp.2d 1159, 1160 (N.D.Ala.2001). For ease of access, the numeric addresses typically correspond to more easily remembered alphanumeric "domain names" (such as
One wishing to use a specific domain name must register the name with one of numerous competing companies known as registrars. In 1993, pursuant to a contract with the National Science Foundation, Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI") became the sole registrar for domain names in the most commonly used TLD's (".com," ".net," ".org," and ".edu"). Id. at 1161. In 1998, the federal government adopted a policy favoring competitive domain name registration. Id. The registry maintains a centralized, publicly accessible database of information concerning all domain names in a TLD, known as the Whois (or WHOIS) database;3 this database is compiled from information submitted by registrars. Id. While there is only a single registry for each TLD, there are numerous competing registrars. Id. Registrars control the IP addresses associated with particular domain names.4 Customers seeking to register specific domain names interact with registrars; the registrars submit information regarding domain names to the registry, which includes the information in the public Whois database. A registrar must be accredited by ICANN for each TLD in which it operates. As part of the certification process, all registrars must sign the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement (the "ICANN agreement").5
Generally, an individual seeking to use a domain name submits an online application to a registrar. Id. at 1161-62. Id. at 1162. The registrant must provide personal and contact information that becomes part of the Whois database. American Girl, 381 F.Supp.2d at 879. The Whois database "allows all registrars to determine almost instantaneously which domain names are already registered and therefore unavailable to others," and "allow[s] a person whose registration application for a particular domain name has been denied as unavailable to determine which registrar registered the name he desires with the Registry." Smith, 135 F.Supp.2d at 1160-62.
The fact that "every person who wants to register a domain name either consents to put some sort of publicly accessible contact information on line, or is unable to register the domain name" has drawn criticism from privacy and free speech advocates. See Matthew Bierlin & Gregory Smith, Privacy Year in Review: Growing Problems with Spyware and Phishing, Judicial and Legislative Developments in Internet Governance, and the Impacts on Privacy, 1 I/S: J.L. & POL'Y FOR INFO. SOC'Y 279, 313-14 (2005); see also, e.g., Dawn C. Nunziato, Freedom of Expression, Democratic Norms, and Internet Governance, 52 EMORY L.J. 187, 256 (Winter 2003) () . ICANN has been reconsidering its policies in light of these concerns. Bierlin & Smith, supra, at 314. In addition, there has been a growth in "companies that will register domain names for individuals and act as a proxy by using the company's contact information." Id. Such services allow domain name registrants concerned with maintaining their privacy to remain anonymous. Naturally, these services also appeal to registrants who wish to conceal their identities for illegitimate purposes. Name-Cheap's provision of an anonymity service to Doe is central to the dispute before the court.
Solid Host is a corporation based in the Netherlands, which is in the business of providing various internet-related services, including web hosting.6 Defendant eNom is an ICANN-accredited registrar and a signatory to the ICANN agreement.7 Defendant NameCheap is also an ICANN-accredited registrar and signatory to the ICANN agreement; Solid Host alleges that it "does not currently know whether [NameCheap] may have acted as [a registrar] in connection with the facts of this particular case."8 In addition to functioning as a registrar, NameCheap offers an anonymity service known as "Whois-Guard," whereby NameCheap becomes the registered owner of a domain name desired by a customer, and licenses the domain name to the customer.9 As a result, NameCheap's contact information rather than the customer's appears in the Whois database.10 Defendant Doe is an anonymous individual described by Solid Host as a "hacker."11
Solid Host alleges that it is the owner of the domain name
Solid Host asserts that on Monday, August 4, 2008, due to a "security breach" at eNom, "Doe unlawfully gained access to [Solid Host's] domain registration account," obtained Solid Host's login and password information, and "stole" the domain name
After discovering that he could no longer control the
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Northstar Fin. Advisors Inc. v. Schwab Invs., 11–17187.
...parties' intent. E.g., Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd., 728 F.Supp.2d 372, 430 (S.D.N.Y.2010) ; see also Solid Host, NL v. Namecheap, Inc., 652 F.Supp.2d 1092, 1119 (C.D.Cal.2009) (“Because they involve factual questions of intent, third party beneficiary claims are often not appropriate ......
-
Northstar Fin. Advisors Inc. v. Investments
...intent. E.g., Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd., 728 F. Supp. 2d 372, 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); see also Solid Host, NL v. Namecheap, Inc., 652 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1119 (C.D. Cal 2009) ("Because they involve factual questions of intent, third party beneficiary claims are often not appropriate for ......
-
Northstar Fin. Advisors Inc. v. Investments
...intent. E.g., Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd., 728 F. Supp. 2d 372, 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); see also Solid Host, NL v. Namecheap, Inc., 652 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1119 (C.D. Cal 2009) ("Because they involve factual questions of intent, third party beneficiary claims are often not appropriate for ......
-
Berhad v. Godaddy.Com, Inc.
...(C.D.Cal.2011); Microsoft Corp. v. Shah, No. 10–0653, 2011 WL 108954, at *1–3 (W.D.Wash. Jan. 12, 2011); Solid Host, NL v. Namecheap, Inc., 652 F.Supp.2d 1092, 1111–12 (C.D.Cal.2009); Ford Motor Co. v. Greatdomains.com, Inc., 177 F.Supp.2d 635, 646–47 (E.D.Mich.2001). We are not persuaded b......
-
U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit Rules There Is No Cause Of Action For 'Contributory Cybersquatting'
...2011); Microsoft Corp. v. Shah, No. 10-0653, 2011 WL 108954, at *1-3 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 12, 2011); Solid Host, NL v. Namecheap, Inc., 652 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1111-12 (C.D. Cal. 2009). Those cases had thrown the issue into flux, especially those that imposed new limitations on secondary liabilit......