Plaintiffs sought in rem jurisdiction over domain names under Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. Defendants argued that in rem provisions of Act were unconstitutional. The court held that the Act's provisions were valid, because Congress could declare domain names to be property and identify the registration location as the sites, and because the name itself was the entire subject matter of the claim and sole remedy, so there was no due process violation to the defendant by allowing in rem jurisdiction.
Opinion at http://pub.bna.com/ptcj/99550.htm
Keywords: cybersquatting, domain names, jurisdiction
| 