198 Cal. App. 4th 1284
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Forchion sought to change his name to NJweedman.com, a domain-name associated moniker tied to his activism and web presence.
- California denied the name-change petition and remanded when the Court sought to understand domain-name ownership implications.
- The court deemed a name ending in .com problematic because domain names are not guaranteed perpetual ownership and may be lost if renewal or registrant obligations lapse.
- Court-approved changes of name may not conflict with existing domain names or trademarks or create consumer confusion between personal and domain identities.
- Forchion had prior New Jersey denials of a similar name-change request, which California comity principles later considered in denying relief.
- The court analyzed common-law and statutory name-change authority, the proprietary nature of domain names, and comity with New Jersey before affirming denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May California grant a name change to NJweedman.com given domain-name issues? | Forchion asserts he owns NJweedman.com as a domain name and should be allowed to adopt it as his personal name. | California may deny if the change would cause confusion or reflect illegal activity; domain-name issues complicate ownership. | No; domain-name considerations and potential confusion support denial. |
| Does comity with New Jersey prevent California from granting the relief? | New Jersey previously denied a similar name-change petition and comity requires deference. | State decisions in another forum should guide, given no changed circumstances. | Yes; comity supports denying the petition. |
| Is a domain name property that could be owned or lost, affecting name-change validity? | Domain-name status could be treated as ownership to justify the name change. | Domain names are contractual products, not standalone property; loss possible through renewal breaches. | Domain-name status cannot justify coercive personal-name change; risk of loss and confusion undermines relief. |
| Would granting the name change cause public-confusion or facilitate illegal activity? | No explicit instruction to illegal activity and only advocacy for reform. | The site contains instructions to grow marijuana and to evade law enforcement, encouraging law-breaking. | Yes; potential for facilitating illegal activity and misalignment with public policy justifies denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Arnett, 148 Cal.App.4th 654 (Cal. App. 4th 2007) (trial court discretion in name-change petitions; substantial reason required for denial)
- In re Ritchie, 159 Cal.App.3d 1070 (Cal. App. 1984) (recognizes discretionary nature of name-change rulings)
- Leone v. Commissioner, Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 933 N.E.2d 1244 (Ind. 2010) (explains common-law vs. statutory name-change coexistence)
- Smith v. Network Solutions, Inc., 135 F.Supp.2d 1159 (N.D. Ala. 2001) (domain-name registration as contractual, not property ownership)
- Brookfield Communications v. West Coast, 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999) (trademark-domain name conflicts and likelihood of confusion)
- Ohio State University v. Thomas, 738 F.Supp.2d 743 (S.D. Ohio 2010) (domain-name/trademark conflict considerations in related disputes)
- Transamerica Corp. v. Moniker Online Services, LLC, 672 F.Supp.2d 1353 (S.D.Fla. 2009) (domain-name and trademark usage issues in disputes)
- Kremen v. Cohen: The “Knotty” Saga of Sex.Com, 337 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2003) (domain-name ownership and property discussions in tech context)
- Tyus v. Tyus, 160 Cal.App.3d 789 (Cal. App. 1984) (res judicata/comity considerations in inter-state name-change context)