Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Digi Real Estate Foundation a/k/a Digi Real Estate
Claim Number: FA0609000787950
Complainant is Choice Hotels International, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Halle B. Markus, of Arent Fox PLLC, 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036. Respondent is Digi Real Estate Foundation a/k/a Digi Real Estate (“Respondent”), P.O. Box 7-5324, Panama City N7 8DJ, PA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <qualityinnn.com>,
<clarionresorts.com>,
<choicehotelinternational.com>, <comfortsuiets.com>,
<quailtyinn.com>,
<qualityinndaytona.com>, <wwwqualityinn.com>, <sleepinnn.com>, <sleepinnhotel.com> and <wwwsleepinn.com>, registered with
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 1, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 5, 2006.
On September 6, 2006, Bizcn.Com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <qaulityinn.com>, <ecnolodge.com> and <choicehhotels.com> domain names are registered with Bizcn.Com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Bizcn.Com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Bizcn.Com, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the Policy.
On September 6, 2006, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <clarionresorts.com>, <choicehotelinternational.com>, <comfortsuiets.com>, <quailtyinn.com>, <qualityinndaytona.com>, <wwwqualityinn.com>, <sleepinnn.com>, <sleepinnhotel.com> and <wwwsleepinn.com> domain names are registered with Enom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the Policy.
On September 9, 2006, GET SLD, INC. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <econolog.com> domain name is registered with GET SLD, INC. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GET SLD, INC. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GET SLD, INC. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the Policy.
On September 11, 2006, Central Registrar, Inc. d/b/a Domainmonger.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <comfirtinn.com> domain name is registered with Central Registrar, Inc. d/b/a Domainmonger.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Central Registrar, Inc. d/b/a Domainmonger.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Central Registrar, Inc. d/b/a Domainmonger.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the Policy.
On September 14, 2006, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <qualityinnn.com> 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-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the Policy.
On September 18, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 9, 2006 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@choicehhotels.com, postmaster@choicehotelinternational.com, postmaster@clarionresorts.com, postmaster@comfirtinn.com, postmaster@comfortsuiets.com, postmaster@ecnolodge.com, postmaster@econolog.com, postmaster@qaulityinn.com, postmaster@quailtyinn.com, postmaster@qualityinnn.com, postmaster@qualityinndaytona.com, postmaster@wwwqualityinn.com, postmaster@sleepinnn.com, postmaster@sleepinnhotel.com and postmaster@wwwsleepinn.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 17, 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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." 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <choicehhotels.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHOICE HOTELS mark, the choicehotelinternational.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL mark, the <clarionresorts.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CLARION RESORT mark, the <comfirtinn.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COMFORT INN mark, the <comfortsuiets.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COMFORT SUITES mark, the <ecnolodge.com> and <econolog.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ECONOLODGE mark, the <qaulityinn.com>, <quailtyinn.com>, <qualityinnn.com>, <qualityinndaytona.com> and <wwwqualityinn.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUALITY INN mark, and the <sleepinnn.com>, <sleepinnhotel.com> and <wwwsleepinn.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s SLEEP INN mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain names in dispute.
3. Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Choice Hotels International, Inc., is one of the largest hotel franchisors in the world. Under various marks, Complainant operates over 5,200 hotels. The marks at issue are CHOICE HOTELS, CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, CLARION RESORT, COMFORT INN, COMFORT SUITES, ECONO LODGE, QUALITY INN and SLEEP INN.
Complainant has registered the following marks with
the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”): CHOICE HOTELS (Reg.
No. 2,717,062 issued May 20, 2003), CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL (Reg. No.
2,638,841 issued October 22, 2002), CLARION RESORT (Reg. No. 1,710,601 issued
August 25, 1992), COMFORT INN (Reg. No. 1,315,180 issued January 15, 1985; Reg.
No. 1,448,467 issued July 21, 1987; Reg. No. 3,050,882 issued January 24, 2006),
COMFORT SUITES (Reg. No. 1,712,482 issued September 1, 1992), ECONO LODGE (Reg.
No. 813,642 issued August 23, 1966; Reg. No. 2,178,518 issued August 4, 1998),
QUALITY INN (Reg. No. 1,183,294 issued December 22, 1981), and SLEEP INN (Reg.
No. 1,690,604 issued June 2, 1992).
Respondent registered the contested domain names on the
following dates: <qualityinndaytona.com> on July 15, 2004, <clarionresorts.com>
on August 21, 2004,
<wwwsleepinn.com> on December 1, 2004, <qaulityinn.com>
on February 18, 2005, <quailtyinn.com> on February 18, 2005, <choicehhotels.com>
on March 17, 2005, <wwwqualityinn.com>
on March 17, 2005, <choicehotelinternational.com> on August
3, 2005, <sleepinnn.com> on August 3, 2005, <ecnolodge.com>
on September 4, 2005,
<comfortsuiets.com> on October 1, 2005, <comfirtinn.com> on October 10, 2005, <qualityinnn.com> on October 11, 2005, <econolog.com> on October 21, 2005 and
<sleepinnhotel.com> on
January 5, 2006. The <sleepinnhotel.com>
and <wwwsleepinn.com> domain names do not resolve to any
content. The remaining domain names
each resolve to a commercial web directory featuring links to various hotels
and hotel reservations websites in competition with Complainant.
Respondent has been the subject of
numerous UDRP proceedings in the past.
In all of these cases, panelists have ordered the transfer of disputed
domain names to the complainant. See,
e.g., DaimlerChrysler AG v. Digi Real Estate Foundation, FA 724594 (Nat.
Arb. Forum July 25, 2006); Allegiant Air v. Digi Real Estate Foundation, FA
712332 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 28, 2006); Morgan Stanley v. Digi Real Estate
Foundation, FA 635605 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2006); Am. Online, Inc.
v. Digi Real Estate Foundation, FA 434241 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2005); Bank
of Am. Corp. v. Digi Real Estate Foundation, FA 400529 (Mar. 3, 2005).
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."
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.”).
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.
Because Complainant has registered the CHOICE HOTELS, CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, CLARION RESORT, COMFORT INN, COMFORT SUITES, ECONO LODGE, QUALITY INN and SLEEP INN marks with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in these marks pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM, CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”).
Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to these
marks. Each domain name contains either
a misspelled variation of the mark or the entire mark combined with a common
term or the letters “www.” None of
these alterations are enough to sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain
names from Complainant’s marks.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s domain names to be
confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini,
FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words
and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but
nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s
marks); see also State Farm
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Try Harder & Co., FA 94730 (Nat. Arb. Forum June
15, 2000) (finding that the domain name <statfarm.com> is confusingly
similar to the complainant’s STATE FARM mark); see also Toronto-Dominion
Bank v. Karpachev, D2000-1571 (WIPO Jan. 15, 2001) (finding that the domain
names <tdwatergouse.com> and <dwaterhouse.com> are virtually
identical to the complainant’s TD WATERHOUSE name and mark); see also Sony
Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that
“[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive
word . . . nor the suffix ‘.com’ detract from the overall
impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely the trademark
SONY” and thus Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092
(Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name
<wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s
registered trademark BANK OF AMERICA because it “takes advantage of a typing
error (eliminating the period between the www and the domain name) that users
commonly make when searching on the Internet”).
The Panel concludes that Complainant has sufficiently satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the subject domain names. Complainant must first make a prima facie case in support of its allegations, and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See 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.”); see also G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
Respondent’s failure to answer the Complaint raises a
presumption that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain names. See Branco do
Brasil S.A. v. Sync Tech., D2000-0727 (WIPO Sept. 1, 2000) (“By its
default, Respondent has not contested the allegation . . . that the Respondent
lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The Panel thus assumes that there was no
other reason for the Respondent having registered <bancodobrasil.com> but
the presumably known existence of the Complainant’s mark BANCO DO BRASIL”); see
also Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l,
D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
where the respondent fails to respond).
However, the Panel will now examine the record
to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶
4(c).
Respondent has registered the domain name under the name “Digi Real Estate Foundation a/k/a Digi Real Estate,” and there is no other evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. Thus, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the domain names in dispute according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record); see also Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’ Given the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [<awvacations.com>] domain name.”).
Respondent’s <choicehhotels.com>, <choicehotelinternational.com>, <clarionresorts.com>, <comfirtinn.com>, <comfortsuiets.com>, <ecnolodge.com>, <econolog.com>, <qaulityinn.com>, <quailtyinn.com>, <qualityinnn.com>, <qualityinndaytona.com>, <wwwqualityinn.com> and <sleepinnn.com> domain names each resolve to a commercial web directory featuring links to Complainant’s competitors in the hotel industry. Respondent likely receives click-through fees for each consumer it diverts to these websites. Consequently, Respondent’s use of the domain names in dispute for commercial gain does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Power of Choice Holding Co., FA 621292 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of domain names confusingly similar to the complainant’s WAL-MART mark to divert Internet users seeking the complainant’s goods and services to websites competing with the complainant did not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also The Royal Bank of Scotland Grp plc et. Al. v. Demand Domains, FA 714952 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 2, 2006) (finding that the operation of a commercial web directory displaying various links to third-party websites was not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), as the respondent presumably earned “click-through” fees for each consumer it redirected to other websites).
Respondent registered the <sleepinnhotel.com> on January 5, 2006 and <wwwsleepinn.com> on December 1, 2004. So far Respondent has made no demonstrable preparations to use them for any purpose, as neither domain name resolves to an active website. In Chanel, Inc. v. Heyward, D2000-1802 (WIPO Feb. 23, 2001), the panel concluded that the respondent did not have rights or legitimate interests in the <chanelparee.com> domain name where it did not respond to the complaint and had failed to use the domain name. This case involves similar circumstances of non-use, and therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has not used the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Boeing Co. v. Bressi, D2000-1164 (WIPO Oct. 23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent has advanced no basis on which the panel could conclude that it has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names, and no commercial use of the domain names has been established).
The Panel concludes that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Because Respondent has been the subject of numerous past UDRP proceedings, all of which required Respondent to transfer the domain names in dispute to the complainant, the Panel finds that Respondent has demonstrated a pattern of registering domain names containing others’ marks in order to prevent these parties from reflecting their marks in domain names. Such conduct constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Yahoo! Inc. v. Deiana, FA 339579 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2004) (“It is found and determined that Respondent is in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) because Respondent registered the disputed domain names to prevent Complainant from reflecting its YAHOO! mark in the corresponding domain names. The registration of the [<ayhooo.com>, <ayhooo.net >, <ayhooo.org>, <ayhoooindia.com>, <ayhoookids.com>, <ayhooorealty.com>, <ayhooorealty.net>, <ayhoooshopping.com>, <ayhooo-uk.com>, and <searchayhooo.com>] domain names herein constitutes a pattern of registering trademark-related domain names in bad faith.”); see also Nat’l Abortion Fed’n v. Dom 4 Sale, Inc., FA 170643 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 9, 2003) (finding bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) because the domain name prevented the complainant from reflecting its mark in a domain name and the respondent had several adverse decisions against it in previous UDRP proceedings, which established a pattern of cybersquatting).
Respondent is using the <choicehhotels.com>,
<choicehotelinternational.com>, <clarionresorts.com>,
<comfirtinn.com>, <comfortsuiets.com>,
<ecnolodge.com>, <econolog.com>,
<qaulityinn.com>, <quailtyinn.com>,
<qualityinnn.com>, <qualityinndaytona.com>,
<wwwqualityinn.com> and <sleepinnn.com> domain names,
which are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks, to redirect Internet
users seeking Complainant’s products and services to the websites of
Complainant’s competitors in the hotel and travel industry. The Panel concludes that Respondent has
registered these domain names in order to disrupt Complainant’s business, which
constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See S. Exposure v. S. Exposure,
Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding that the respondent
registered the domain name in question to disrupt the business of the
complainant, a competitor of the respondent);
see also EBAY, Inc. v.
MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that the respondent
registered and used the domain name <eebay.com> in bad faith where the
respondent has used the domain name to promote competing auction sites).
Respondent’s
registration and use of the aforementioned domain names also constitute bad
faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), as Respondent presumably earns
click-through fees for each consumer it diverts to competing websites. Respondent is taking advantage of the
confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and Complainant’s
registered marks in order to profit from the goodwill associated with the
marks. See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. 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);
see also Allianz of America Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat.
Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶
4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the
complainant to its own website and likely profiting from click-through fees).
With respect to the <sleepinnhotel.com> and <wwwsleepinn.com> domain names, Respondent’s failure to make use of these domain names for an extended period of time, when combined with the uses Respondent is currently making of its other domain names, indicates that Respondent has registered and used these domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith); see also Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (permitting an inference of bad faith where the respondent made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the domain name in dispute).
Furthermore, Respondent’s domain names representing common misspellings of Complainant’s registered marks indicate that Respondent is engaged in typosquatting. Typosquatting constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Dermalogica, Inc. v. Domains to Develop, FA 175201 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 22, 2003) (finding that the <dermatalogica.com> domain name was a “simple misspelling” of the complainant's DERMALOGICA mark which indicated typosquatting and bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also RE/MAX Int’l, Inc. v. Seocho, FA 142046 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 25, 2003) (inferring that the respondent’s registration of the <wwwremax.com> domain name, incorporating the complainant’s entire mark, was done with actual notice of the complainant’s rights in the mark prior to registering the infringing domain name, evidencing bad faith).
The Panel concludes that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <choicehhotels.com>, <choicehotelinternational.com>, <clarionresorts.com>, <comfirtinn.com>, <comfortsuiets.com>, <ecnolodge.com>, <econolog.com>, <qaulityinn.com>, <quailtyinn.com>, <qualityinnn.com>, <qualityinndaytona.com>, <wwwqualityinn.com>, <sleepinnn.com>, <sleepinnhotel.com> and <wwwsleepinn.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: October 31, 2006
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum