Morgan Stanley v. Billy Southgate / Privacy Department / IceNetworks Ltd. / michael knowland / morgan stanley / 脌nna Ford / callum rogers / bespokelead / Richard mead / Morgan Stanley Services / Pete Chapman
Claim Number: FA2207002006389
Complainant is Morgan Stanley (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Billy Southgate / Privacy Department / IceNetworks Ltd. / michael knowland / morgan stanley / 脌nna Ford / callum rogers / bespokelead / Richard mead / Morgan Stanley Services / Pete Chapman (“Respondent”), United Kingdom.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <au-morgan-stanley.com>, <aus-morganstanley.com>, <aus-morgan-stanley.com>, <morganstanley-australia.com>, <morganstanley-fixedincome.com>, <morganstanley-investing.com>, <morganstanley-investments.com>, <morganstanley-retail.com>, <morganstanley-sydney.com>, and <australia-morganstanley.com>, registered with Namecheap, Inc.; Internet Domain Service Bs Corp; Web Commerce Communications Limited Dba Webnic.Cc; Nicenic International Group Co., Limited; Hosting Concepts B.V. D/B/A Registrar.Eu, Webcc, and Nicenic International Group Co., Limited.
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.
The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 29, 2022; the Forum received payment on July 31, 2022.
On July 29, 2022; August 1, 2022; August 2, 2022; August 3, 2022; August 8, 2022, Namecheap, Inc.; Internet Domain Service Bs Corp; Web Commerce Communications Limited Dba Webnic.Cc; Nicenic International Group Co., Limited; Hosting Concepts B.V. D/B/A Registrar.Eu, Webcc, Nicenic International Group Co., Limited confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <au-morgan-stanley.com>, <aus-morganstanley.com>, <aus-morgan-stanley.com>, <morganstanley-australia.com>, <morganstanley-fixedincome.com>, <morganstanley-investing.com>, <morganstanley-investments.com>, <morganstanley-retail.com>, <morganstanley-sydney.com>, <australia-morganstanley.com> domain names are registered with Namecheap, Inc.; Internet Domain Service Bs Corp; Web Commerce Communications Limited Dba Webnic.Cc; Nicenic International Group Co., Limited; Hosting Concepts B.V. D/B/A Registrar.Eu, Webcc, and Nicenic International Group Co., Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Namecheap, Inc.; Internet Domain Service Bs Corp; Web Commerce Communications Limited Dba Webnic.Cc; Nicenic International Group Co., Limited; Hosting Concepts B.V. D/B/A Registrar.Eu, Webcc, and Nicenic International Group Co., Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Namecheap, Inc.; Internet Domain Service Bs Corp; Web Commerce Communications Limited Dba Webnic.Cc; Nicenic International Group Co., Limited; Hosting Concepts B.V. D/B/A Registrar.Eu, Webcc, and Nicenic International Group Co., Limited 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 August 10, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 30, 2022 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@au-morgan-stanley.com, postmaster@aus-morganstanley.com, postmaster@aus-morgan-stanley.com, postmaster@morganstanley-australia.com, postmaster@morganstanley-fixedincome.com, postmaster@morganstanley-investing.com, postmaster@morganstanley-investments.com, postmaster@morganstanley-retail.com, postmaster@morganstanley-sydney.com, and postmaster@australia-morganstanley.com. Also on August 10, 2022, 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 response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 6, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has submitted 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 this is shown by the evidence that each of the disputed domain names references Australia, that they were registered within days or weeks of each other, and that the email addresses for each of the disputed domain names share commonalities.
Complainant has thus shown that the domain names were in effect registered by the same domain name holder and the matter may therefore go forward on that basis.
A. Complainant
Complainant made the following contentions.
Complainant, Morgan Stanley, is a leading provider of financial services. Complainant has rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,707,196 registered August 11 1992). See Compl. Ex. 6. Respondent’s <au-morgan-stanley.com>, <aus-morganstanley.com>, <aus-morgan-stanley.com>, <morganstanley-australia.com>, <morganstanley-fixedincome.com>, <morganstanley-investing.com>, <morganstanley-investments.com>, <morganstanley-retail.com>, <morganstanley-sydney.com>, and <australia-morganstanley.com> domain names (hereinafter the “Disputed Domain Names”) are virtually identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because each one incorporates the MORGAN STANLEY mark in its entirety and adds a geographic or otherwise generic term, a hyphen, and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, some of the disputed domain names redirect to Complainant’s own website in an attempt to capitalize on false affiliation with Complainant. The remaining disputed domain names resolve to inactive webpages.
Respondent registered the disputed domain names on the following dates:
July 9, 2022 -<au-morgan-stanley.com> and <aus-morgan-stanley.com>;
July 16, 2022 -<aus-morganstanley.com>; July 19, 2022 -<morganstanley-australia.com> and <morganstanley-investing.com>; July 17, 2022 -<morganstanley-fixedincome.com>; July 18, 2022 - <morganstanley-investments.com> and <morganstanley-retail.com>; July 10, 2022 - <morganstanley-sydney.com>;July 25, 2022 -<australia-morganstanley.com>;
Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. First, Respondent registered the disputed domain names in order to capitalize on consumer recognition of Complainant’s mark and pass Respondent off as affiliated with Complainant. Respondent has failed to make active use of some of the disputed domain names. Additionally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
1. Complainant is a United States company engaged in the financial services industry.
2. Complainant has established its rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,707,196 registered August 11 1992).
3. Respondent registered the disputed domain names on the following dates:
July 9, 2022 -<au-morgan-stanley.com> and <aus-morgan-stanley.com>; July 16, 2022 -<aus-morganstanley.com>;
July 19, 2022 -<morganstanley-australia.com> and <morganstanley-investing.com>; July 17, 2022 -<morganstanley-fixedincome.com>;
July 18, 2022 - <morganstanley-investments.com> and <morganstanley-retail.com>; July 10, 2022 - <morganstanley-sydney.com>; and July 25, 2022 -<australia-morganstanley.com>;
4. Some of the disputed domain names redirect to Complainant’s own website in an attempt to capitalize on false affiliation with Complainant. The remaining disputed domain names resolve to inactive webpages.
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(f), 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The first question that arises is whether Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely. Complainant submits that it has rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark based upon the registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,707,196 registered August 11, 1992). See Compl. Ex. 6. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is a valid showing of rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Since Complainant provides evidence of registration of the MORGAN STANLEY mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the mark under Policy 4(a)(i).
The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark. Complainant argues the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark. The addition of a term and a gTLD fails to distinguish a disputed domain name sufficiently from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). In addition, the use of a geographic term and a hyphen similarly fails to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark. See General Motors LLC v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org, FA 1656166 (Forum Feb. 12, 2016) (finding respondent’s <gm-uzbekistan.com> domain name confusingly similar to complainant’s GM mark as the addition of the geographic term “uzbekistan” is inconsequential to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis); see also Pirelli & C. S.p.A. v. Tabriz, FA 921798 (Apr. 12, 2007) (finding that the addition of a hyphen between terms of a registered mark did not differentiate the <p-zero.org> domain name from the P ZERO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Here, the disputed domain names contain the MORGAN STANLEY mark in its entirety while adding in either a geographic or descriptive term, a hyphen, and the “.com” gTLD. Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per 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 Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
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 MORGAN STANLEY mark and to use it in its domain names, adding various geographic or descriptive words;
(b) Respondent registered the disputed domain names on the dates set out in the above Findings;
(c) Some of the disputed domain names redirect to Complainant’s own website in an attempt to capitalize on false affiliation with Complainant. The remaining disputed domain names resolve to inactive webpages;
(d) Respondent has engaged in these activities without the consent or approval of Complainant;
(e) Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names since Respondent is not commonly known by any of the disputed domain names and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark. WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Where WHOIS information may indicate that a Respondent is commonly known by a complainant’s mark, additional information is required to demonstrate that the Respondent is in fact commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See La Quinta Worldwide, LLC v. La Quinta WorldWide, FA1505001621299 (Forum July 11, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <laquintaworldwide.com> domain name even though “La Quinta WorldWide” was listed as registrant of the disputed domain name, because the respondent had failed to provide any additional evidence to indicate that it was truly commonly known by the disputed domain name). In addition, a lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may also indicate that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Mohamed elkassaby, FA 1801815 (Forum Sep. 17, 2018) (“The WHOIS lists “Mohamed elkassaby” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists “Billy Southgate”, “Privacy Department”, “IceNetworks Ltd.”, “michael knowland”, “morgan stanley”, “脌nna Ford”, “callum rogers”, “bespokelead”, “Richard mead”, “Morgan Stanley Services”, and “Pete Chapman” as the domain names’ registrants. See Registrar Email Verifications. Complainant further submits it has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark, and that Respondent has not provided additional information to demonstrate it is commonly known as “morgan stanley” or “Morgan Stanley Services”. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii);
(f) Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as some of the disputed domain names resolve to Complainant’s own website. Where the Respondent uses a domain name to redirect users to a Complainant’s own website, the Panel may find the respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Direct Line Ins. plc v. Low-cost-domain, FA 1337658 (Forum Sept. 8, 2010) (“The Panel finds that using Complainant’s mark in a domain name over which Complainant has no control, even if the domain name redirects to Complainant’s actual site, is not consistent with the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii) . . .”). Here, Complainant provides evidence of some of the disputed domain names resolving to Complainant’s own website. See Compl. Ex. 8. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii);
(g) Complainant also argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as some of the disputed domain names instead resolve to inactive webpages. Where the Respondent fails to make active use of a domain, the Panel may find the respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“both Domain Names resolve to a web site that shows the words, ‘Not Found, The requested URL / was not found on this server.’ Inactive holding of a domain name does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Here, Complainant provides evidence of some of the disputed domain names resolving to inactive webpages. See Compl. Ex. 8. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
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 does not have a right or legitimate interest 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 argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith because Respondent attempts to take advantage of confusion with Complainant’s well-known mark to pass itself off as affiliated with Complainant for commercial gain. Use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a well-known mark can be evidence of a bad faith attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (“The Panel finds such use to constitute bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), because [r]espondent is taking advantage of the confusing similarity between the <metropolitanlife.us> domain name and Complainant’s METLIFE mark in order to profit from the goodwill associated with the mark.”); see also Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain). In addition, use of a domain name to redirect users to a complainant’s own website can be evidence of a bad faith attempt to pass Respondent off as affiliated with Complainant. See Altavista Co. v. Brunosousa, D2002-0109 (WIPO Apr. 3, 2002) (finding, when a domain name is used to redirect to the complainant’s website, that “such redirection will allow the Respondent to divert future users to competing web sites after having built up mistaken confidence in the source of the content,” which constitutes bad faith registration and use); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”). Here, Complainant provides evidence to establish the notoriety of its mark. See Compl. Ex. 2, 3, and 5. Complainant also provides evidence of some of the disputed domain names resolving to Complainant’s own website. See Compl. Ex. 8. As the Panel agrees, it finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Secondly, Complainant also argues that, because some of the disputed domain names resolve to inactive webpages, Respondent has demonstrated bad faith registration and use. Inactive holding may in and of itself be considered evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See VideoLink, Inc. v. Xantech Corporation, FA1503001608735 (Forum May 12, 2015) (“Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). As previously noted, Complainant provides evidence of some of the disputed domain names resolving to inactive webpages. See Compl. Ex. 8. As the Panel agrees, it finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names to be in bad faith, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Thirdly, Complainant also contends that in light of the fame and notoriety of Complainant's MORGAN STANLEY mark, it is inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the disputed domain names without actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark. The Panel finds that arguments of bad faith based on constructive notice are unlikely to succeed, as prior UDRP decisions decline to find bad faith as a result of constructive knowledge. See The Way Int'l, Inc. v. Diamond Peters, D2003-0264 (WIPO May 29, 2003) ("As to constructive knowledge, the Panel takes the view that there is no place for such a concept under the Policy."). However, Respondent clearly had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain names and the Panel finds that actual knowledge is adequate evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (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). In this case, the Panel notes the notoriety of Complainant’s mark. See Compl. Ex. 2, 3, and 5. As the Panel determines that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark, it finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Finally, 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 MORGAN STANLEY mark and in view of the conduct that Respondent has engaged in when using the domain names, Respondent registered and used them 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 <au-morgan-stanley.com>, <aus-morganstanley.com>, <aus-morgan-stanley.com>, <morganstanley-australia.com>, <morganstanley-fixedincome.com>, <morganstanley-investing.com>, <morganstanley-investments.com>, <morganstanley-retail.com>, <morganstanley-sydney.com>, and <australia-morganstanley.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown QC
Panelist
Dated: September 7, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page