[mdb31]

Well, I'm pretty sure you can't even directly sue over ownership of a .com domain? You have to submit to UDNP arbitrage first (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en).

It doesn't seem they even tried this in this case? So this should be a dismissal right away, albeit at great emotional/monetary expense to the original owner. Unfair, but yeah, cryptobros will be cryptobros, and any harm to members of society is just for the good of society, I'm sure...

(Later edit: so, apparently I'm wrong, and there is no binding arbitration clause. Still, lame action, and this seems the exact situation arbitration is designed for, especially since 'local courts' is not exactly well-defined for .com...)

[electroly]

Sure you can. It's stated explicitly in the UDRP on the very page you just linked: one way to handle a dispute is to take it to a court and get a ruling.

> Under the policy, most types of trademark-based domain-name disputes must be resolved by agreement, court action, or arbitration before a registrar will cancel, suspend, or transfer a domain name.

> ... file a complaint in a court of proper jurisdiction against the domain-name holder ...

Emphasis mine. You don't have to choose arbitration.

[gruez]

>Well, I'm pretty sure you can't even directly sue over ownership of a .com domain?

Why not? The whole story seems like a contract dispute, which most definitely is in the jurisdiction of local courts.

[NovemberWhiskey]

>arbitrage

I think you mean "arbitration".

Why do you think the UDRP has any bearing on what Jump can do in court? ICANN can't make up rules that apply to third parties; there's such a thing as privity of contract! The UDRP may be incorporated into the contract that Merryman agreed to with his registrar, but Jump isn't a signatory to that agreement.