11/6/02
© 2002 Philip
R. Green Law Offices of Green & Green
37
State Bar
of
California
Business
Law
Section
Cyberspace
Law
Committee
State Bar
of
California
Business
Law
Section
Cyberspace
Law
Committee
Is
a Domain Name “Property?” SEX.com
pKremen vs. Cohen
Facts:
Cohen wanted Kremen’s SEX.com, wrote letters to NSI alleging he was transferred the Domain Name with confirmation of
Kremen’s former
administrator.
Issues –
was this CONVERSION?
Held NO –
Historically, the tort of conversion was confined to tangible property. See 5 Witkin, Summary
of California Law, Torts § 613 (9th ed.1988). “However, California law does recognize
"conversion of intangibles represented by documents, such as a bonds, notes, bills of exchange, stock certificates, and warehouse
receipts." Id. Intangible property
such as "goodwill of business, trade secrets, a newspaper route, or a laundry list of customers" are not
subject to conversion. Kremen
lost millions over 4 years.
Does not
adopt Umbro because Umbro was a garnishment and Right in a Domain Name exist apart from NSI agreements.
It may be:
forgery, and conspiracy to convert property RICO and Fraud theories U.S.C.A. 9th Cir. No. C
98-20718 May 30, 2000.
pBottom Line –
Allege all possible theories not just conversion.
