Aug. 30, 2017
12:33 p.m.
On 30/08/17 12:44, parminder wrote:
The court took up jurisdiction, and also accepted to treat gtld as sieze-able property, these are the two most important facts of the case.
The first contention is correct. The second is demonstrably incorrect. This case did not involve either gTLDs or domains registered under them. It involved the ccTLDs of three countries. .IR, .SY and .KP. And the court explicitly stated that domain names (of any kind) were NOT seizable (attachable). A different answer might be given under the law of a different jurisdiction, of course. But those are facts in that case.