Here is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b): http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65 http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65 (1) Issuing Without

Here is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b): http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65 http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65 (1) Issuing Without Notice. The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required. So, if all of this is considered a "temporary restraining order", then it must be based on these rules, which also seem to provide certain protections to the affected party, including requiring the plaintiff to put up security to reimburse the affected party for any damages they may suffer as a result of the order. I hope that a lawyer can chime in here and give a decent opinion as to whether this is kosher, and also to answer whether it seems correct to effectively transfer control over property such as domain names through this mechanism.