Dear all, This case was mentioned during the call on Friday. I had not had the time to read it thoroughly then but I have done so now I would like to highlight a few points, to make sure that we interpret this case according to what it actually rules on (and not what it could have, may in the future, or should have ruled on) In this case the injunction is granted on the basis of a "likely to succeed" breach of contract, the contract in question being the terms of use DNC sends or displays in connection with queries directed to .nz The main point of the case is thus whether there was a contract between DT and DNC. What made the case in DNC's favour is that DT repeatedly accessed DNC's .nz registry over several years, and that there was thus indeed enough "intention to be bound" by DNC's ToUs on DT's part. The precedent the court uses here is the Registry.com case dating from 2004. Under US law a preliminary injunction can be issued following a 4-pronged test, one of these prongs being that there must be in the interest of the public in the issuance of the injunction. DT asserted that not being able to provide its service, as far as .nz is concerned, would harm the public. It happens that .nz registrant info can be obtained from DNC directly, so their point was already quite moot. Moreover, the privacy .nz seeks to maintain is in the interest of their registrants. Hence, overall, there is a public interest in issuing the injunction. Also, DT being incorporated in Washington (the state, not DC), DNC reached out to the federal court of their domicile in order to get the injunction. Possibly more costly than staying in NZ, but certainly much more effective. Finally, there will be a full decision on the merits later, and in the meantime, who knows, maybe more injunctions coming up against DT. It is not certain that DNC will win on the merits (i.e. whether there was indeed a breach of contract) but we can conclude at this point that it is likely. The case itself and the press release from DNC have been circulated already on various lists (and maybe this one too), but I re-attach for convenience. Best,