Pocket Kings was an online gaming services operator which both and facilitated and licensed the use of its domain name fulltiltpoker.com. Safenames, an English company, was contractually responsible for pointing the fulltiltpoker.com domain name towards Pocket Kings' domain name servers. In 2008 the State of Kentucky, in the course of enforcing its criminal laws, sought penal forfeiture of the fulltiltpoker.com domain name on the basis that it had been used in the commission of multiple crimes within Kentucky. A seizure order was made and served on Safenames, requiring it to transfer the domain name immediately transferred to an account of Kentucky.
Pocket Kings sought an undertaking from Safenames that it would not do any act that interfered with the use and enjoyment of its domain name. After Safenames failed to give it, Pocket Kings sued both Safenames and Kentucky and applied for a declaration that the court would neither recognise nor enforce the orders in the Kentucky proceedings for the seizure or forfeiture of the domain name. The State of Kentucky failed to acknowledge service and Pocket Kings applied for summary judgment. Safenames said it was willing to submit to judgment on agreed terms, so long as Pocket Kings obtained judgment in default against Kentucky. Before giving judgment, the Court had to satisfy itself on a number of issues.
The Deputy Judge allowed the application. In his view
Kentucky was not itself a State within the meaning of the State Immunity Act 1978, so could not rely on s.12(1) of that Act which provides:
- The United States was a sovereign state but Kentucky was just one of its constituent territories. Under Section 14 of the same Act:
This provision clearly distinguished between 'the state' and a constituent territory of a federal state and the law would not make sense if it was possible for an entity to be both a constituent territory of a federal state and a state in its own right.
- In order to attract immunity, Kentucky would have had to be doing something in the exercise of 'sovereign authority'. The Kentucky proceedings had been brought under local law by a local public official and not by a federal agency. Immunity was not available to Kentucky because the authority by which it regulated gambling within the Commonwealth was an exercise of its own sovereignty and not the sovereignty of the federal Government of the US.
- There was no independent immunity for separate entities or constituent territories; such immunity as they enjoyed was parasitic on the immunity conferred on the State.
- In the case of penal and public laws, the basis of non-enforceability was identified as being that one state did not recognise within its own jurisdiction the penal or public acts of another sovereign state. Although Kentucky was not a sovereign state, the penal and public acts in question had been undertaken by a government which was a constituent part of a sovereign state. If a sovereign state's penal and public acts were not enforceable, the penal and public acts of the government of a constituent part of the sovereign state had to be non-enforceable. Accordingly Kentucky's proceedings were not enforceable in English law as being penal and governmental in nature.
Says the IPKat, this case does something to clarify the questions which many have asked concerning the fate of domain names the use of which is lawful in some jurisdictions but not in others. It seems that the fate of a domain name -- which may be registered as or incorporate a trade mark -- will depend on, among other things, the status of the foreign government and the juridical nature of its penal system. Says Merpel, I wonder how many people misread, as I did, fulltiltpoker.com as futilitypoker.com.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.