| | Mattel Inc. v. Barbie-Club.com (2002) |
 | | We affirm, holding that (1) subsection (d)(2)(A) of the ACPA provides for in rem jurisdiction only in the judicial district in which the registrar, registry, or other domain-name authority that registered or assigned the disputed domain name is located, and (2) subsection (d)(2)(C) does not provide an additional basis for in rem jurisdiction. |
 | | Because the parties effectively agree that in rem jurisdiction is available in some judicial district within the United States, we turn to the question of whether the Southern District of New York is a proper judicial district for entertaining this in rem action. |
 | | Noting that the in rem rules had their origin in admiralty law, where a court established its jurisdiction by seizure, the Supreme Court found that "the court must have actual or constructive control of the res when an in rem forfeiture is initiated." Id. at 87, 113 S.Ct. 554 (emphasis added); cf. |
| www.law.uconn.edu /homes/swilf/ip/cases/mattel.htm (6130 words) |