A decision issued by the Eastern District of Virginia on July 14, 2005, provides a useful basis for reviewing the in rem rules under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. See NBC Universal Inc. v. nbcuniversal.com, 76 USPQ2d 1370 (E.D.Va. 2005).

1,  The filing of a proceeding under the ICANN UDRP does not waive the right to pursue an in rem ACPA action, either before, during or acfter the UDRP action.  See Barcelona.com, Inc. v. Excelenstisimo Ayuntamiento de Barcelona, 330 F.3d 617 (4th Cir. 2003); Parisi v. Netlearning, Inc., 139 F.Supp.2d 745 (E.D.Va. 2001).

2.  A plaintiff is not limited in bringing a civil action to the jurisdiction to which it submits under the UDRP procedures.  Storey V. Cello Holdings, L.L.C., 347 F.3d 370 (2d Cir. 2003).

3.  The U.S. Court need not abstain from exercising jurisdiction over the domain name in deference to an action filied by the domain name owner in a foreign jurisction.

4.  In rem jurisdiction applies to infringement and dilution claims involving the domain name, as well as ACPA claims.  Herrods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Name, 302 F.2d 214 (4th Cir. 2002).

See also GlobalSantaFe Corp. v. Globalsantafe.com, 250 F.Supp.2d 610 (E.D.Va. 2003).