Case Background
Our firm represented a domain name holder (Plaintiff) in a dispute concerning domain name ownership and contract validity with a US tech enterprise (Defendant). The Plaintiff registered the domain name voXXX.com in 2001. In 2002, the Defendant attempted to purchase it via email negotiations, which were unsuccessful. In 2003, the Defendant filed a lawsuit in a US court seeking specific performance of the alleged contract and obtained a default judgment. In 2005, the domain name was transferred to a third party via a US court enforcement order. The Plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit in a Chinese court asserting ownership and claiming the contract was never formed.
Case Difficulties
- Loss of Domain Control: The domain had been transferred to a third party via a US judicial process.
- Conflict of Laws on Contract Validity: A US court had already determined a contract existed and enforced its transfer.
- Broken Evidence Chain:
Missing domain name renewal records.
Key email content misinterpreted by the US court. - Conflict of Judicial Sovereignty: Whether the Chinese court would recognize the US judgment.
Highlights of Our Services
1.Rigorous Argument on Contract Formation Elements:
- Extracted the original 2002 email chain (proving no meeting of the minds).
- Refuted the Defendant’s “oral agreement” claim (lack of consideration payment evidence).
2.Challenge to US Judgment Validity:
- Cited Article 281 of the Civil Procedure Law: Foreign judgments without notarization and authentication shall not be recognized.
- Exposed procedural flaws in the US judgment (invalid service leading to default judgment).
3.Domain Transfer Path Tracing:
- Identified the May 13, 2005, change record (acquisition by third party MicroStrategy).
- Linked the timing of the US court enforcement order to the transfer.
4.Legal Restructuring of Ownership Claim:
- Distinguished between contract validity disputes and property ownership determination.
- Constructed the logic chain: “Contract not formed ≠ Automatic restoration of ownership”.
Case Results
1. Victory on Core Dispute
- Final judgment determined the domain name sales contract was not formed (rebutting the US court’s factual finding).
2. Judicial Sovereignty Upheld
- Refused to recognize the validity of the unauthenticated and unnotarized US judgment.
3. Rational Disposition of Ownership Claim
- Based on the objective reality that the domain had been transferred to a third party.
- Dismissed the claim for restoration of ownership but preserved the declaration of contract invalidity.
4. Procedural Cost Control
- Second-instance court acceptance fee of 1,000 yuan borne by the Plaintiff.
- Blocked the Defendant’s attempt to abuse judicial procedures to transfer assets.
Table of Contents
