H-D U.S.A., LLC v. craig Ballantyne / HarleyDavidsonjackets and wotsinstock / craig ballantyne
Claim Number: FA1309001518243
Complainant is H-D U.S.A., LLC (“Complainant”), represented by David M. Kelly of Kelly IP, LLP, Washington, D.C., USA. Respondent is craig Ballantyne / HarleyDavidsonjackets (“Respondent”), Great Britain.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <harleydavidsonjackets.info>, registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and <harleydavidsonjackets.net>, registered with eNom, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding as Panelist.
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 6, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on September 6, 2013.
On September 6, 2013 Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <harleydavidsonjackets.info> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On September 10, 2013, eNom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <harleydavidsonjackets.net> domain name is registered with eNom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On September 17, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 7, 2013 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@harleydavidsonjackets.info, postmaster@harleydavidsonjackets.net. Also on September 17, 2013, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no formal response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 8, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Respondents
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” Complainant contends that both disputed domain names are registered to the same individual, Mr. Craig Ballantyne. The Panel notes that the WHOIS lists the registrant of the <harleydavidsonjackets.info> domain name as “craig Ballantyne” residing at “90 sissons road middleton” in “Leeds, GB.” The Panel notes that the WHOIS lists the registrant of the <harleydavidsonjackets.net> domain name as “wotsinstock craig ballantyne” residing at “68 sissons road middleton” in “Leeds, GB.” Complainant also claims that both disputed domains are being used in connection with the same infringing website. Complainant says that <harleydavidsonjackets.net> redirects to the website located at <harleydavidsonjackets.info>. The Panel finds that the domain names are commonly owned/controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases. This proceeding may therefore continue against the one Respondent.
A. Complainant
Complainant made the following contentions:
1. Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
a. Complainant, Harley-Davidson, has manufactured, advertised, and sold motorcycles under the HARLEY-DAVIDSON trademark and trade name since 1903. Complainant has also sold apparel including jackets and numerous other products under its HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark since at least as early as 1915.
b. Complainant owns hundreds of trademark registrations for the HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark in countries around the world, including registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,078,871 registered December 6, 1977), the United Kingdom’s Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 658,028 registered April 9, 1947), and the European Union’s Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (“OHIM”) (Reg. No. 1,797,018 registered March 21, 2002).
c. The <harleydavidsonjackets.info> and <harleydavidsonjackets.net> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark because each is comprised of Complainant’s mark in its virtual entirety (omitting only the hyphen) and a generic term.
2. Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
a. Respondent is not and has not been commonly known by the <harleydavidsonjackets.net> or <harleydavidsonjackets.info> domain names.
i. Respondent’s use of the name “HarleyDavidsonjackets” on the WHOIS record and on Respondent’s website does not demonstrate any legitimate interest in the domains because Respondent cannot justify its misappropriation of a trademark in a domain name merely through use of a trade name.
ii. Respondent is not an authorized HARLEY-DAVIDSON dealer or otherwise authorized by Complainant to use the HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark.
b. Respondent uses the <harleydavidsonjackets.info> domain name for a commercial website offering counterfeit HARLEY-DAVIDSON jackets and other apparel. Respondent’s website also uses Complainant’s logo and well-known orange-and-back corporate color scheme. See Complainant’s Exhibit 9.
c. Respondent uses the <harleydavidsonjackets.net> domain name to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s <harleydavidsonjackets.info> website.
d. Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names for a commercial website offering counterfeit HARLEY-DAVIDSON products does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
e. Respondent’s use of Complainant’s logo and orange-and-black color scheme on Respondent’s website constitutes “passing off,” in that Respondent is trying to pass its website off as Complainant’s website and/or as a website affiliated with or sponsored by Complainant.
3. Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)
a. Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names constitute bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business by offering counterfeit HARLEY-DAVIDSON products and unfairly competing with Complainant’s own offering of genuine HARLEY-DAVIDSON products.
b. Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names constitute bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because Respondent uses the domains to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant and its famous HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, and/or endorsement of Respondent’s website and the products offered thereon.
c. Respondent’s unauthorized use of Complainant’s logo and its orange-and-black color scheme constitutes “passing off.”
d. Respondent registered the disputed domain names with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark given the international fame of Complainant’s mark, Complainant’s many decades of conducting business in the U.K. where Respondent is located, and Respondent’s use of the domains to offer counterfeit HARLEY-DAVIDSON products.
4. Complainant contends that both disputed domain names are registered to the same individual, Mr. Craig Ballantyne. Complainant also claims that both disputed domains are being used in connection with the same infringing website.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a formal Response to this proceeding, but the Forum received two e-mails from Respondent on September 11, 2013, the first asking the Forum to “close the domain name thanks,” and the second simply stating “its ok they can have the name thanks.”
1.Complainant has manufactured, advertised, and sold motorcycles under the HARLEY-DAVIDSON trademark and trade name since 1903. Complainant has also sold apparel including jackets and numerous other products under its HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark since at least as early as 1915.
2.Complainant owns hundreds of trademark registrations for the HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark in countries around the world, including registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,078,871 registered December 6, 1977), the United Kingdom’s Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 658,028 registered April 9, 1947), and the European Union’s Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (“OHIM”) (Reg. No. 1,797,018 registered March 21, 2002).
3. Respondent registered the <harleydavidsonjackets.info> domain name on April 4, 2013 and the <harleydavidsonjackets.net> domain name on June 23, 2013.
4. Both disputed domain names are registered to the same individual, Mr. Craig Ballantyne and both disputed domains are being used in connection with the same infringing website.
5. Respondent uses the <harleydavidsonjackets.info> domain name for a commercial website offering counterfeit HARLEY-DAVIDSON jackets and other apparel and uses Complainant’s logo and well-known orange-and-back corporate color scheme. Respondent uses the <harleydavidsonjackets.net> domain name to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s <harleydavidsonjackets.info> website.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
The first question that arises is whether Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it can rely. Complainant claims to have manufactured, advertised, and sold motorcycles under the HARLEY-DAVIDSON trademark and trade name since 1903. Complainant also claims to have sold apparel including jackets and numerous other products under its HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark since at least as early as 1915. Complainant further claims to own hundreds of trademark registrations for the HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark in countries around the world, including registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,078,871 registered December 6, 1977), the UKIPO (e.g., Reg. No. 658,028 registered April 9, 1947), and the European Union’s OHIM (Reg. No. 1,797,018 registered March 21, 2002). In light of Complainant’s trademark registrations, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. r9.net, FA 445594 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2005) (finding the complainant’s numerous registrations for its HONEYWELL mark throughout the world sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the mark under the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
The second question that arises is whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark. Complainant argues that the <harleydavidsonjackets.info> and <harleydavidsonjackets.net> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark because each domain name is comprised of Complainant’s mark in its virtual entirety (omitting only the hyphen) and a generic term. The Panel notes that each domain name also affixes a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to the substantive portion of the domain. Past panels have found that the addition or removal of hyphens and the addition of a gTLD are insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name. See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (finding that hyphens and top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of the Policy). Past panels have also found that the addition of an extra term to Complainant’s mark, especially one that describes the types of products Complainant sells under its mark, does not establish distinctiveness for Policy purposes. See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding that the addition of the generic term “finance,” which described the complainant’s financial services business, as well as a gTLD, did not sufficiently distinguish the respondent’s disputed domain name from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <harleydavidsonjackets.info> and <harleydavidsonjackets.net> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish.
It is now well established that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations:
(a) Respondent has chosen to take Complainant’s HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark and to use it in its domain names, merely adding the word “jackets” a product sold by Complainant, thus implying that the domain names are official domain names of Complainant and that they will lead to official websites of Complainant, neither of which is true;
(b) Respondent uses the <harleydavidsonjackets.info> domain name for a commercial website offering counterfeit HARLEY-DAVIDSON jackets and other apparel and uses Complainant’s logo and well-known orange-and-back corporate color scheme. Respondent uses the <harleydavidsonjackets.net> domain name to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s <harleydavidsonjackets.info> website;
(c)Respondent has engaged in these activities without the consent or
approval of Complainant;
(d) Complainant avers Respondent is not and has not been commonly known by the <harleydavidsonjackets.net> or <harleydavidsonjackets.info> domain name. Complainant suggests that Respondent’s use of the name “HarleyDavidsonjackets” on the WHOIS record and on Respondent’s website does not demonstrate any legitimate interest in the domains because Respondent cannot justify its misappropriation of a trademark in a domain name merely through use of a trade name. Moreover, Complainant asserts that Respondent is not an authorized HARLEY-DAVIDSON dealer or otherwise authorized by Complainant to use the HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark. The panel in Nature’s Path Foods Inc. v. Natures Path, Inc., FA 237452 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 2, 2004), found that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name prior to its registration of the domain name, even though respondent listed its name and its administrative contact as ‘Natures Path, Inc.’ in its WHOIS contact information, because respondent’s failure to respond to the complaint left no affirmative evidence in the record to suggest that respondent was in fact known by that name. Similarly, the Panel in this case is of the view that Respondent’s failure to submit a Response leaves the Panel with no basis on which to find that Respondent is in fact commonly known by the disputed domain. The Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <harleydavidsonjackets.net> or <harleydavidsonjackets.info> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii);
(e)Complainant urges that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant asserts that Respondent uses the <harleydavidsonjackets.info> domain name for a commercial website offering counterfeit HARLEY-DAVIDSON jackets and other apparel. Complainant asserts that Respondent uses the <harleydavidsonjackets.net> domain name to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s <harleydavidsonjackets.info> website, where the counterfeit products are then offered. The panel in eLuxury.com Inc. v. WangJunJie, FA 1075554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 30, 2007), concluded that the sale of counterfeit products is evidence that a respondent does not make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a disputed domain name. The panel in Keihin Corp. v. Youli Ltd., FA 1106190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2007), agreed, finding no rights and legitimate interests when the respondent sold counterfeit versions of the complainant’s products because respondent’s illegitimate offerings competed unfairly with the complainant’s business. In view of this precedent, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to redirect consumers to Respondent’s own competing website, where counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products are sold, constitutes use in accordance with neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii);
(f) Complainant next claims that Respondent is attempting to pass itself off as Complainant online through Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names. Complainant notes that Respondent’s website uses Complainant’s logo and well-known orange-and-back corporate color scheme in order to imitate Complainant. See Complainant’s Exhibit 9. Complainant maintains that Respondent’s use of Complainant’s logo and orange-and-black color scheme on Respondent’s website proves that Respondent is trying to pass its website off as Complainant’s website and/or as a website affiliated with or sponsored by Complainant. As the Panel agrees that the evidence presented by Complainant supports the inference that Respondent is attempting to pass itself off as Complainant, the Panel rules that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) on this basis as well. See Dream Horse Classifieds v. Mosley, FA 381256 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 8, 2005) (finding the respondent’s attempt to pass itself off as the complainant by implementing a color scheme identical to the complainant’s was evidence that respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)).
All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent.
As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish.
It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith and have been used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) for establishing bad faith are not exclusive, but that Complainants in UDRP proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Having regard to those principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain
names were registered and used in bad faith. That is so for the following
reasons.
First, Complainant contends that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names constitute bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), because Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business by offering counterfeit HARLEY-DAVIDSON products and unfairly competing with Complainant’s own offering of genuine HARLEY-DAVIDSON products. Previous panels have agreed, finding that the sale of counterfeit versions of a complainant’s goods at a disputed domain name unfairly competes with the complainant’s legitimate offerings. See Juicy Couture, Inc. v. Chinasupply, FA 1222544 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 13, 2008) (holding that the selling of counterfeit versions of a complainant’s products disrupted the complainant’s business and is evidence of bad faith registration and use); see also Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A., L.L.C. v. David, FA 1138296 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2008) (concluding that the complainant’s business is disrupted by the respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name for the purpose of selling counterfeit products). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the <harleydavidsonjackets.info> and <harleydavidsonjackets.net> domain names demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Secondly, Complainant contends that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names constitute bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), because Respondent uses the domain names to attract intentionally, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant and its famous HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, and/or endorsement of Respondent’s website and the products offered thereon. Complainant again notes Respondent’s attempt to pass itself off as Complainant, through the unauthorized use of Complainant’s logo and orange-and-black color scheme, as a major source of confusion for consumers. When coupled with confusingly similar domain names, the Panel finds that the content of Respondent’s website does indeed create unwarranted confusion with Complainant and its legitimate offerings. Because Respondent presumably generates a profit from the sale of goods on its website, the Panel infers that Respondent intentionally registered and uses the disputed domain names with an eye toward attraction for commercial gain. As a result, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and uses the <harleydavidsonjackets.info> and <harleydavidsonjackets.net> domain names in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See H-D Michigan, LLC v. Ross, FA 1250712 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2009) (determining that the respondent’s selling of counterfeit products creates the likelihood of confusion as to the complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain name and allows the respondent to profit from that confusion); see also Affliction, Inc. v. Chinasupply, FA 1223521 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 23, 2008) (finding that the respondent attempts to commercially gain by creating confusion as to the complainant’s connection with the website by selling counterfeit products).
Thirdly, Complainant contends that Respondent registered the <harleydavidsonjackets.info> and <harleydavidsonjackets.net> domain names in bad faith because Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights in the HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark at the time Respondent registered the domains. Complainant argues that given the international fame of Complainant’s mark, Complainant’s many decades of conducting business in the U.K. where Respondent is located, and Respondent’s use of the domains to offer counterfeit HARLEY-DAVIDSON products, Respondent must have been aware of Complainant’s rights. As the Panel agrees with Complainant, finding that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark prior to registering the disputed domain names, and as the Panel finds that actual knowledge is adequate evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), the Panel finds that Respondent’s registration of the <harleydavidsonjackets.info> and <harleydavidsonjackets.net> domain names constitutes bad faith. See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name)."
Fourthly, in addition and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel
finds that, in view of Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names using the mark and in view of the conduct that Respondent has engaged in when using them, Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <harleydavidsonjackets.info> and <harleydavidsonjackets.net> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.
Panelist
Dated: October 17, 2013
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page