Volume I

Issue : 10: November 13, 2003

• B.C. Court of Appeal Takes Note of Special Nature of an IT Business in Recent Decision
• Internet Browser Patent Re examination Ordered
• Time Warner to Enter the VoIP Market in California Bangladesh to Open VoIP to Private Sector
• CDT Releases Report on Spyware
• FTC Holiday Warning to E tailers
• B.C. Supreme Court has Jurisdiction Over Domain Name Dispute
• U.S. Court of Appeals Reverses FBI Eavesdropping Orders
• Pharma Companys Use of Cookies Found Not in of Violation of Privacy Legislation
• Manufacture of Garage Door Openers Uses DCMA to Fight Competitor
• Music Industry Establishes One-Stop International Licence for Webcasters
• Movie Industry Set to Sue Individual File Sharers in War Against Piracy
• Report Finds Identity Theft on the Rise in Canada
• Bank Managers Disclosure Of Private Information Leads To Cancelled Wedding

Home > Volume I > Issue 10: November 13, 2003 > B.C. Supreme Court has Jurisdiction Over Domain Name Dispute

B.C. Supreme Court has Jurisdiction Over Domain Name Dispute

On November 3, 2003, the Supreme Court of British Columbia found that it had jurisdiction over a defendant company incorporated in Samoa that was not doing business in B.C.

The dispute involved the domain name "www.poker.com" which was used for an Internet gambling site. Because of differences among jurisdictions in the regulation of gambling, a complex structure was set up to enable the gambling site to operate.

ALA Corporation ("ALA"), which was incorporated in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, owned the domain name. ALA licensed it to the Plaintiff, Uninet Technologies Inc. ("UniNet"). The license included an arbitration clause requiring all disputes to be finally resolved by arbitration in Vancouver under the British Columbia Commercial Arbitration Act. In addition, under the license agreement the parties attorned to the jurisdiction of the British Columbia courts.

Without notice to UniNet, ALA sold the domain name to the Defendant, Communications Services Inc. ("CSI"), a Samoan company, which made a further sale of the domain name to Darkblue.com Pty Ltd., an Australian company. UniNet commenced arbitration proceedings against ALA and commenced an action against CSI for inducing breach of contract. On the motion with respect to jurisdiction, the issue was whether there was a "substantial connection" with B.C. UniNet had served its claim in reliance on its claim that the alleged tort was committed in B.C. The court found that UniNet was wrong on this point. No tort had been committed in B.C. However, the court said that was not required. A claim in the pleadings of inducing breach of a contract that was made in B.C., combined with a claim that damages were suffered in B.C., was sufficient to find jurisdiction. The Plaintiff also met the test of showing a "good arguable case" and accordingly the court had jurisdiction.

This case can be found at:

http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcsc/2003/2003bcsc1674.html