Jurysdykcja międzynarodowa Stanów Zjednoczonych w sporach . domenowych (na przykładzie decyzji w sprawie sieci Botnet Waledac)

• Authors: Joanna Kulesza

Title variants

EN

International jurisdiction in the United States in cases involving domain-names (the Botnet Walledac decision case-study)

• Languages of publication: PL

Abstracts

EN

The author discusses the consequences of Virginia D.C. temporary restraining order against 27 anonymous defendants, resulting in the blocking of 273 domain names, dully registered by foreign individuals. The in rem proceedings were conducted based on personal jurisdiction over the Doe Defendants. This case constitutes a dangerous precedent for exercising jurisdiction over electronic contacts, creating actually a universal competence of the Virginia court. To support this thesis the paper contains a brief summary of the precautious U.S. jurisdictional practice in Internet cases exercised so far. The author presents the evolution of the U.S. judiciary and its noteworthy achievements in setting the jurisdictional standards for cyberspace (e.g. limiting the effective jurisdiction and applying the effects test). She also briefly discusses the international principles of jurisdiction and their applicability (or lack thereof) in the U.S. national legal system. Neither the U.S. judiciary practice nor the international law principles were reflected in this February 2010 Waledac decision, making it a dangerous turning point for all international e-business cases.

Keywords

PL

Jurysdykcja międzynarodowa; Spory domenowe

EN

International jurisdiction; Cases involving domain-names

• Publisher: Łódzkie Towarzystwo Naukowe, Stowarzyszenie
• Journal: Studia Prawno-Ekonomiczne
• Year: 2010
• Volume: LXXXI (81)
• Pages: 93-113

Dates

published

2010

Contributors

author

Joanna Kulesza

• Katedra Prawa Międzynarodowego i Stosunków Międzynarodowych Wydziału Prawa i Administracji Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.

References

• American Library Association v. Pataki, 969 F.Supp. 160 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
• Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995).
• Barlow J. P., A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, Davos, 8 lutego 1996 r., dostępna 28 kwietnia 2010 r. pod: http://memex.org/barlow.html.
• Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King, 937 F. Supp. 295 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), aff’d 126 F. 3d. 25.
• Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985).
• Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984).
• CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C.
• Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/) Code of Civil Procedure, 735 ILCS 5/2-209 (1955).
• CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257 (1996).
• Coughenour v. State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 62 F.3d 1423 (1995).
• Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F. 3d. 414 (9th Cir. 1997).
• Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.
• Hearst Corp. v. Goldberger, WL 97097 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
• Inset Systems Inc. v. Instruction Set, Inc., 937 F. Supp. 161 (D. Conn. 1996).
• International Shoe v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).
• Lanham Act, 15 USC.
• Maritz, Inc. v. Cybergold, Inc., 947 F. Supp. 1328 (E.D. Mo.1996).
• Mattel Inc v. Adventure Apparel, 2001 WL 28672 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
• Microsoft Corporation v. John Does 1–27, sygnatura powództwa 1_10CV156 (LMBIJFA).
• Millan Mc R., Update: Court order helps Microsoft tear down Waledac spam botnet, InfoWorld, 25 lutego 2010, dostępne 25 kwietnia 2010 r. pod: http://www.infoworld.com/t/malware/court-order-helps-microsoft-tear-down-waledac-botnet-930.
• mmpc, What we know (and learned) from the Waledac takedown, Microsoft Technet, 15 marca 2010, dostępne 24 kwietnia 2010 pod: http://blogs.technet.com/mmpc/archive/2010/03/15/what-we-know-and-learned-from-the-waledac-takedown.aspx.
• O’Dell J., Microsoft Kills Watchdog Website Due to Leaked Documents, Read-WriteWeb, 24 lutego 2010, dostępne 24 kwietnia 2010 pod: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/_improper_use_of_copyright.php.
• Panavision Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998).
• Perritt Jr. H. H., Stewart M. G., ABA Internet Jurisdiction Project, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology, 2000, dostępne 10 kwietnia 2010 r. pod: www.kentlaw.edu/cyberlaw/ottawa3.ppt.
• Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Chuckleberry Pub., Inc., 939 F. Supp. 1032 (S.D.N.Y 1996).
• Restatement of the Law, The Foreign Relations Law of the United States, The American Law Institute, 1987 r.
• Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004).
• Stany Zjednoczone v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996).
• State of Minnesota by its Attorney General Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Respondent, vs. Granite Gate Resorts, Inc., d/b/a On Ramp Internet Computer Services; et al., Appellants, 568 N.W.2d 715 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997).
• Status Report Re Preliminary Injunction v3.doc, dostępne 24 kwietnia 2010 pod: www.noticeofpleadings.com/images/Statusreportfiledcopy.pdf.
• The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C.
• U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 453 F.3d 1151, 7/12/2006.
• United States v. Swiss American Bank, Ltd., 274 F.3d 610, 623-24 (1st Cir. 2001).
• Zippo Mfr. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997).

Identifiers

ISSN

0081-6841