Bill Poser is annoyed that the state of Kentucky has decided to seize a bunch of domain names on the unlikely theory that they are “gambling devices”.
Among the silly things going on here is the name of the case, which Bill explains in the comments:
Yes, the nominal defendants are the domain names. This is an example of a lawsuit in rem "against a thing". It is the typical form of action in seizure cases. This results in wonderful case names like "United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat’s Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness, 40 F. Supp. 208 (W D.N.Y. 1941)" , "United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins, No. 05-56274 (9th Cir. Mar. 17, 2008)", "United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola 241 U.S. 265 (1916)", and the inimitable "United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries 86 F.2d 737 (2nd Cir. 1936)". (The pessaries in question were what we would now call diaphragms. This is the case in which the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit over-ruled the government's invocation of the Comstack Act and allowed Margaret Sanger to import Japanese contraceptives.)
1 comment:
This makes me want to file suit. "Planx_Constant v. 1 Can of Allegedly Tasty Healthy Choice Soup"
Post a Comment