{"id":98093,"date":"2025-03-30T22:51:01","date_gmt":"2025-03-30T21:51:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/?p=98093"},"modified":"2025-11-06T12:40:17","modified_gmt":"2025-11-06T11:40:17","slug":"can-a-domain-name-be-seized","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/kan-er-beslag-worden-gelegd-op-een-domeinnaam\/","title":{"rendered":"Can a domain name be seized?"},"content":{"rendered":"

An order of the attachment judge at the Dutch-speaking court of first instance in Brussels brings clarification to a legal issue that is becoming increasingly relevant in our digital economy: can the domain name<\/a> of a debtor be seized?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case in brief<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

On July 9, 2024, the attachment judge in Brussels ruled in a case involving TSG Interactive Gaming Europe Limited and Rational Intellectual Holdings Limited (RIHL) acting against a creditor who had ordered the attachment of several domain names, including 'pokerstars.eu' and related domain names.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Based on an Austrian judgment, the creditor had had these domain names seized from EURid (European Registry for Internet Domains.<\/a>), the administrator of .eu domain names. RIHL brought a revocation action in response, arguing that it was the owner of the domain names. TSG, in turn, challenged the validity of the seizure itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key question: are domain names attachable?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The attachment judge first analyzed the legal nature of a domain name. According to the judge, it is not the domain name itself, but the right to use a domain name that has an asset value over which a person can exercise exclusive power. This right of use was labeled by the judge as a \"sui generis asset right\" - a special kind of asset right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because this right of use represents an economic value and is transferable to third parties (under conditions of EU regulation 2019\/517<\/a>), the attachment judge ruled that it was part of the domain name holder's assets and therefore subject to attachment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proper procedure for seizing a domain name<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Although the attachment court basically allowed the attachment of domain names, there was an important procedural sticking point:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court ruled that the seizure of the domain names had been irregularly executed. Instead of an executive attachment of movable property from a third party (as had happened in Eurid), the procedure of an executive attachment had to be among third parties<\/strong> (in the hands of Eurid) are followed (Articles 1539 et seq. Judicial Code).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The attachment was eventually lifted, not because domain names are unattachable, but because the wrong attachment procedure had been followed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What does this mean for your domain names?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

This ruling confirms an important principle: domain names<\/a> - or rather, the right to use it - can indeed be seized by creditors. This has implications for companies whose domain name represents significant commercial value.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For companies operating in the digital sphere, it is advisable to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n