Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Lucentsucks.Com, 95 F.Supp.2d 528, 54 U.S.P.Q.2d 1653 (E.D.Va. May 03, 2000) (NO. CIV. A. 99-1916-A)

Lucent brought in rem action against domain name LucentSucks.com.  On name owner's motion to dismiss the Court held that the Plaintiff failed to comply with due diligence requirements of ACPA.

Lucent sent mail and email notices to domainname owner.  After waiting eight days they filed suit.  Court held that due process requires a reasonable time before filing suit and reasonable effort to contact the property owner.

LucentSucks argued that a domain name was not property 

Court did specifically state that " internet domain name constitutes "res" for purpose of establishing in rem jurisdiction.

Domain Names are Property
Defendant contends that an Internet domain name is not a "thing," in the same way that a boat or a bridge is a "thing," because it does not occupy space or exist in a particular place. Therefore, according to defendant, a domain name cannot constitute a "res" for purposes of establishing in rem jurisdiction.
This argument has been raised before with regard to the ACPA, and we find Judge Bryan's articulate rejection of it beyond reproach:
There is no prohibition on a legislative body making something property. Even if a domain name is no more than data, Congress can make data property and assign its place of registration as its situs.
Ceasars World, Inc. v. Ceasars-Palace.com, No. 99-550-A, at 5 (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 3, 2000).

Where is the discussion of UMBRO which was decided almost two weeks before this case in state appeals court?

As one federal court has explained, " 'sucks' has entered the vernacular as a word loaded with criticism." Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber, 29 F.Supp.2d 1161, 1164 (C.D.Cal.1998) (granting summary judgment to defendant website designer on claims brought pursuant to the Trademark Act, where defendant registered the domain name ballysucks.com).A successful showing that lucentsucks.com is effective parody and/ or a cite for critical commentary would seriously undermine the requisite elements for the causes of action at issue in this case.

This is cybergriping not cybersquatting.