Only if the ccTLD is cybersquatting someone else's name. And that's of vanishingly small likelihood. The fact is that the name is allocated not by ICANN, but by the ISO-3166 Maintainence Agency, and even in the odd one or two cases where there is a trademark in the two letter combination (I can only think of Bhutan) there is clearly no conflict, since that country isn't selling phone service to UK customers. On 24/08/17 15:46, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Excuse again my ignorance, but is the legislation under 18 U.S.C. § 981(b)(2), which provides a legal framework for property seizures by the government, not general enough to allow for the seizure of a TLD if it is considered as an asset or property being used for committing crimes that may be prosecuted in the US?
Let’s say a ccTLD or a gTLD evolve in a way that they may be considered under that act as such asset/property – could it not be seized with theOly if fact that they are registered under ICANN’s root being a sufficient connection?
Thanks for any specific hint and regards
Jorge
*Von:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Mueller, Milton L *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 24. August 2017 16:39 *An:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Betreff:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [EXTERNAL] Re: ISSUE: In rem Jurisdiction over ccTLDs
Yes, Becky this is correct, ACPA is an anti-cybersquatting law for trademark protection and was written with second-level domains in mind.
I guess it is possible that a gTLD would be subject to ACPA – but if and only if someone managed to cybersquat a trademark in the TLD level. And since ICANN’s TLD awarding process is so heavily biased toward trademark owners, it is unlikely that a TM-violating TLD (say, giving .IBM to Parminder) would ever happen. But if it did, I supposed it could be applied. I can’t see how it could ever be applied to a ccTLD.
*From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Burr, Becky via Ws2-jurisdiction *Sent:* Tuesday, August 22, 2017 7:02 PM *To:* Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>; thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [EXTERNAL] Re: ISSUE: In rem Jurisdiction over ccTLDs
Fwiw, to the extent that US courts have in rem jurisdiction over domain names, my recollection is that is a function of very specific anti-squatting trademark law and is extremely unlikely to apply to ccTLDs.
*J. Beckwith Burr**** **Neustar, Inc.***/**Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW DC 20006 *Office:***+1.202.533.2932 *Mobile:***+1.202.352.6367
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction