## Facts

- Umbro obtained a federal default judgment and injunction against 3263851 Canada, Inc. concerning use of the “umbro.com” domain name and recovered a monetary award for fees and expenses.
- Umbro domesticated the federal judgment in Virginia and sought to collect through a writ of fieri facias and a state garnishment proceeding.
- The judgment debtor had registered “umbro.com” and 37 other domain names with Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI), then the exclusive registrar for certain top-level domains.
- Umbro named NSI as garnishee and sought to garnish the 38 domain name registrations by requiring NSI to place the names on hold and transfer control to the circuit court for sale.
- The circuit court ruled that the domain name registrations were subject to garnishment.
- NSI appealed, presenting a first-impression question in Virginia about whether a registrant’s rights in a domain name can be garnished.

## Issues

1. Whether a registrant’s contractual right to use Internet domain names obtained through registration services constitutes “property” or a “debt” subject to garnishment under Virginia law.
2. Whether, in a garnishment proceeding, a court may compel a domain-name registrar to transfer control of domain name registrations for judicial sale to satisfy a judgment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the circuit court.
- The court held that the registrant’s rights in the domain name registrations were not subject to garnishment.
- The court concluded the registrant held only a contractual right to receive registrar services from NSI, not a property interest or debt held by NSI for the judgment debtor.

## Legal Principles

- Garnishment in Virginia is statutory; it reaches only (a) debts owed by the garnishee to the judgment debtor or (b) property of the judgment debtor in the garnishee’s possession or control, as authorized by statute.
- A domain name registration, as between registrar and registrant, is a contractual right arising from a contract for services (maintenance of the registration and DNS-related functions), not ownership of the domain name as property held by the registrar.
- A garnishment cannot be used to convert a garnishee’s obligation to perform services for the debtor into an obligation to transfer or perform for the creditor absent statutory authority.
- The commercial value of an interest does not, by itself, make it garnishable; the interest must fit within the types of debts or property interests recognized by the garnishment statutes.

## Conclusion

The court held that a registrant’s rights in domain name registrations with a registrar are service-contract rights rather than garnishable debts or property interests, and it reversed the order permitting garnishment of the domain name registrations.


Network Sols., Inc. v. Umbro Int’l, Inc., 529 S.E.2d 80 (Va. 2000)