Kremen v. Cohen Network Solution, Inc. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2003. Facts: Kremen (plaintiff) created a business entity called Online Classifieds and, in the name of Online Classifieds, registered the internet domain name “sex.com” with domain registrar Network Solutions. Cohen (defendant), a convicted con artist, recognized the profit potential of the domain name and sent a forged letter to Network Solutions informing that Online Classifieds wished to relinquish ownership of the sex.com domain name. After Network Solutions deleted the registration, Cohen acquired the domain name and went on to form a profitable internet pornography enterprise. Procedural History: Kremen filed suit against Cohen seeking to reacquire the domain name and Cohen’s ill-gotten profits. The district court ruled in Kremen’s favor, but Kremen had no real success executing the judgment against Cohen. As an alternative, Kremen initiated a lawsuit against Network Solutions that included a tort claim of conversion. The district court awarded summary judgment in favor of Network Solutions on all of Kremen’s claims (breach of implied contract between Kremen and NS, breach of contract between NS and the government, conversion, and conversion by bailee) . Kremen appealed. Issue: Is an internet domain name a form of property that is subject to a claim of conversion under California law? Holding: Yes, judgment reversed as to the conversion claimed. Reasoning: In light of California precedent pertaining to property rights in corporate stock shares and business customer lists, California appears to depart from the doctrine of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 242 (1965). California law does not limit liability for conversion only to those intangible property rights created by the express terms of a legal instrument. The property rights inherent in the ownership of a domain name can be definitively identified. The rights conveyed by registration of the domain name may be exercised by the registrant to the exclusion of others. The plaintiff has demonstrated a legitimate basis to claim ownership of the domain name and the property rights appurtenant to ownership. Improper interference with those rights to the plaintiff’s detriment gives rise to an actionable claim for conversion. Three part test to determine if something is property: first, there must be an interest capable of precise definition; second, it must be capable of exclusive possession and control; and third, the owner must have established a legitimate claim to exclusivity.