That judge is a dumbass and any precedent that ‘justifies’ this ruling should be reviewed and struck down. This is called theft. And do eminent domain too while we’re at it.
Theft is when something you own is taken away. The squatter never owned the domain, only registered to use it. In this case, ICANN owns the domain and allows a registrar to handle who can use that domain. ICANN sets strict rules on how domains can be used, and the squatter broke those rules.
Maybe the judge is a little smarter on actual laws than you are.
Property is anything (items or attributes/tangible or intangible) that can be owned by a person or entity. Property is the most complete right to something; the owner can possess, use, transfer or dispose of it.
The point isn’t that intangible objects can’t be property. The point is that domains are not legally owned by people or corporations. You can pay for the right to use one, but you don’t own it.
That judge is a dumbass and any precedent that ‘justifies’ this ruling should be reviewed and struck down. This is called theft. And do eminent domain too while we’re at it.
Theft is when something you own is taken away. The squatter never owned the domain, only registered to use it. In this case, ICANN owns the domain and allows a registrar to handle who can use that domain. ICANN sets strict rules on how domains can be used, and the squatter broke those rules.
Maybe the judge is a little smarter on actual laws than you are.
A domain name is explicitly not property.
Cornell Law disagrees.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/property
The point isn’t that intangible objects can’t be property. The point is that domains are not legally owned by people or corporations. You can pay for the right to use one, but you don’t own it.