Relentless Pursuit: Man’s 17-Year Domain Name Quest Continues
One man’s unwavering ambition to acquire short .com domain names continues to fuel a remarkable, and increasingly complex, legal saga.
A Chinese national appears determined to leave no stone unturned in his quest to secure highly coveted one- and two-letter .com domain names, a pursuit that has spanned nearly two decades and multiple legal jurisdictions.
Minjie Zheng’s tenacious endeavor began in China in 2008, and since then, he has initiated lawsuits in 2011, 2014, 2018, and 2020. In these legal actions, he argued that he should be granted the right to register 67 single-character .com and .net domains, in addition to a substantial number of reserved two-letter domains. He believes that denying him the right to register these domains is unfair and unjustified.
After facing repeated setbacks and ultimately failing to achieve his objectives within the Chinese court system, Zheng escalated his battle by filing a lawsuit against the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and Verisign (NASDAQ: VRSN) in California in May 2025. This move signaled a significant expansion of his legal strategy and a determination to pursue his domain name aspirations on a global stage. In this lawsuit, he alleged antitrust violations, breach of contract, unfair business practices, and a variety of other violations. These allegations form the core of his argument against ICANN and Verisign’s policies regarding domain name registration.
Zheng’s legal demands were substantial. He asked the court to compel Verisign to register the specific domain names he sought and to compensate him for expenses incurred during his legal battles, as well as for alleged mental damages suffered as a result of the ongoing dispute. This request for financial compensation highlights the personal toll that Zheng claims the domain name dispute has taken on him.
However, in September, the court sided with ICANN and Verisign, granting motions to dismiss (pdf) the case. The court’s decision represented a significant victory for ICANN and Verisign, and a major setback for Zheng’s long-running quest. Furthermore, the court made a critical finding, concluding that Zheng had acted in bad faith throughout the legal proceedings. This determination of bad faith carries serious implications for Zheng’s future legal endeavors.
The court’s finding of bad faith stemmed, in part, from Zheng’s conduct during the proceedings. Acting as a pro se plaintiff (representing himself without an attorney), he reportedly ran afoul of the court in multiple ways. One particularly egregious instance involved the apparent use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools to generate legal filings. This use of AI, however, resulted in the inclusion of false case citations within his legal documents, a serious breach of legal ethics and procedure.
Despite initially “expressing some contrition for his use of unverified, AI generated citations,” Zheng continued to file documents containing false citations. This repeated misconduct further undermined his credibility with the court and contributed to the court’s eventual finding of bad faith. The use of AI in legal proceedings is a relatively new and evolving area, and Zheng’s case highlights the potential risks and pitfalls associated with relying on AI-generated content without proper verification.
Verisign, facing the burden of responding to what it characterized as additional baseless filings by Zheng, requested that the court grant it attorneys’ fees to cover the costs of its defense. Verisign’s defense counsel asserted that Zheng had stated that he recruited five other individuals and had “explained to them that a person can use AI to help create and format documents to file in U.S. lawsuits.” This alleged recruitment and instruction in the use of AI to generate legal documents further fueled concerns about Zheng’s conduct and the potential for abuse of AI technology within the legal system.
Ultimately, the judge ordered (pdf) Zheng to pay $66,000 to Verisign as compensation for its attorneys’ fees. This financial penalty represents a significant consequence of Zheng’s legal conduct and a further blow to his domain name acquisition efforts. The imposition of attorneys’ fees is a common practice in legal proceedings where one party is found to have acted in bad faith or pursued frivolous claims.
Despite these setbacks, Zheng remains undeterred. He has appealed the case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals this month, indicating his unwavering commitment to pursuing his domain name ambitions. The appeal signifies that Zheng is not willing to accept the lower court’s decision and intends to continue fighting for his desired domain names. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is a federal appellate court with jurisdiction over several western states, and its decision in this case could have significant implications for the future of domain name law.
This case raises important questions about the ownership and allocation of valuable digital assets, particularly short and memorable domain names. As the internet continues to evolve and become increasingly central to business and communication, the value of prime domain names is likely to continue to rise, fueling further disputes and legal challenges. Zheng’s case serves as a reminder of the complexities and challenges involved in navigating the world of domain name ownership and intellectual property rights in the digital age.
The pursuit of short .com domains is often seen as a lucrative investment opportunity. These domains are highly sought after due to their brevity, memorability, and potential for attracting significant online traffic. Businesses and individuals alike recognize the value of a short, easy-to-remember domain name for branding, marketing, and establishing a strong online presence. However, the limited availability of these domains has created a competitive market and, as Zheng’s case demonstrates, can lead to protracted legal battles.
The involvement of ICANN and Verisign in this case underscores their critical role in the domain name system. ICANN is responsible for coordinating the global internet’s domain name system, ensuring its stable and secure operation. Verisign, on the other hand, operates the .com registry, managing the database of .com domain names and providing the infrastructure necessary for their registration and resolution. Both organizations have a vested interest in maintaining the integrity and fairness of the domain name system, and their defense against Zheng’s lawsuit reflects this commitment.
The outcome of Zheng’s appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals remains uncertain. The appellate court will review the lower court’s decision and consider the arguments presented by both sides. Depending on the court’s ruling, the case could be remanded back to the lower court for further proceedings, or the appellate court could issue a final decision that either upholds or reverses the lower court’s ruling. Regardless of the outcome, Zheng’s case has already drawn significant attention to the complexities of domain name law and the challenges involved in acquiring highly sought-after digital assets.
Ultimately, Minjie Zheng’s 17-year quest for short .com domains exemplifies the lengths to which some individuals are willing to go to secure valuable digital assets. His relentless pursuit, marked by repeated legal challenges and allegations of improper conduct, highlights the high stakes involved in the domain name market and the potential for conflict and controversy. As the internet continues to evolve, it is likely that similar disputes over domain names and other digital assets will continue to arise, underscoring the importance of clear legal frameworks and effective dispute resolution mechanisms.