RockResorts International
LLC and The Vail Corporation v. HempWorld, Inc. c/o Matthijs Huijgen
Claim Number: FA0709001082160
PARTIES
Complainant is RockResorts International LLC and The
Vail Corporation (“Complainants”),
represented by Jennifer Daniel Collins, of Faegre & Benson, LLP, 1700 Lincoln St., Suite 3200, Denver, CO 80203-4532. Respondent is HempWorld, Inc. c/o Matthijs
Huijgen (“Respondent”),
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <rockresort.com>, registered with Dotster.
PANEL
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.
Hon. Charles A. Kuechenmeister (Ret.)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the
“Forum”) electronically on September 25, 2007;
the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 26, 2007.
On September 26, 2007, Dotster confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that
the <rockresort.com>
domain name is registered with Dotster
and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dotster
has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dotster
registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes
brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On October 9, 2007, a Notification
of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement
Notification”), setting a deadline of October 29, 2007 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@rockresort.com by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on October 29, 2007.
An Additional Submission by Complainant conforming to Forum
Supplemental Rule 7 was received by the Forum on November 5, 2007 and an
Additional Submission by Respondent conforming to Forum Supplemental Rule 7 was
received by the Forum on November 13, 2007.
Both were considered by the Panel along with all other evidence in the
case.
On November 6, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed the Honorable Charles A. Kuechenmeister (Ret.)
as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
1.
Complainant
the Vail Corporation (“Vail”) is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of
2.
RockResorts
owns and Vail operates the RockResort brand of luxury lodging properties, which
include dining, spas and fitness centers, golf courses and a variety of outdoor
activities located in prime resort and vacation areas in the
3.
RockResorts
holds valid registrations on the Principal Register for the trademarks and
service marks ROCKRESORTS, R ROCKRESORTS and ROCKRESORT (the “ROCKRESORTS
Marks”) in International Class 42 in connection with hotel, motel and resort
lodging services, restaurant services, restaurant and bar services, hotel
consulting advisory services for others, and hotel reservations, and in
International Class 43 in connection with travel agency services (making
reservations and booking for temporary lodging) and resort hotels.
4.
RockResorts
first claimed use of the ROCKRESORTS Marks in October 1968 for travel agency
services and hotel services, and in September 1999 for hotel consultancy
services and hotel reservations.
5.
RockResorts
has granted authority to Vail the right to use the ROCKRESORTS Marks as the
agent and operator of the RockResorts properties.
6.
The ROCKRESORTS
Marks have been extensively used and advertised by RockResorts and Vail and
enjoy a high degree of recognition in the Untied States. They are known throughout the
7.
RockResorts
and Vail are very active in electronic commerce, advertising the RockResorts properties and services on
the website <rockresorts.com>.
8.
Respondent
registered the Domain Name on March 25, 1999.
It was using the Domain Name to direct Internet users to a website which
contains links to goods and services related to vacation planning that compete
with RockResorts’ and Vail’s business.
9.
The
Domain Name is identical to RockResorts’ trademark ROCKRESORT except for the
addition of the generic top-level domain “.com.”
10.
At the
time Respondent registered the Domain Name it had no trademark or intellectual
property rights in it.
11.
The
website located at the Domain Name gives users the ability to click on one or
more links related to categories of goods and services, some of which are
related to hotels and hotel reservations.
It appears designed to generate “click through” advertising revenues for
Respondent.
12.
Such use
of the Domain Name does not qualify as a bona
fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or as a legitimate noncommercial or
fair use of the Domain Name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
13.
Respondent
is not and has never been a licensee of RockResort or Vail with respect to the
Domain Name.
14.
Respondent
thus lacks any valid rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
15.
At the
time Respondent registered the Domain Name, the ROCKRESORTS Marks were
sufficiently distinctive and famous to give constructive notice to Respondent
that the registration would violate RockResorts’ and Vail’s rights.
16.
Respondent’s
use of the Domain Name as described in paragraph 11 above was designed to
attract Internet users to a website they could mistakenly believe was owned by
RockResorts and Vail.
17.
RockResorts
and Vail first learned of Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name shortly
before mid-August 2007. They promptly
notified Respondent to cease and desist using the Domain Name and convey it to
Complainants.
18.
When so notified
by Complainants, Respondent demanded $29,000 as consideration for the
same.
B.
Respondent
1.
Neither
HempWorld, Inc. (“Respondent”) nor Matthijs Huijgen has ever operated or
managed luxury lodging properties, nor has either of them ever operated the
Domain Name for commercial gain.
2.
Respondent
has been an active registrant of internet domain names since 1995. It currently owns approximately 500 domain
names. It only buys domain names and has
never sold any of them, nor does it offer its domain names for sale to the
public or to third parties.
3.
When it
registered the Domain Name in March 1995 Respondent also registered a number of
other names including <hardrockresort.com>, <hardrockresorts.com>,
<hardrockresorts.net>, <rockresort.net>, <rockresorts.net>,
<rocksresort.com> and <rocksresorts.com>.
4.
From the
date it registered the Domain Name until Complainants first contacted it in
August 2007 Respondent was not aware of the existence of a RockResorts.
5.
Based
upon Complainants’ delay of some eight years in protesting Respondent’s use of
the Domain Name, and based upon Complainants’ failure to protest at all the
Responent’s use of the domain name <rockresort.net>, it appears that
Complainants are abusing the UDRP in an effort simply to gain ownership of the
Domain Name.
6.
Respondent
has not violated the rights of Complainants because it is not now and never has
been engaged in any of the activities included in International Class 42
(hotel, motel and resort lodging services, restaurant services, restaurant and
bar services, hotel consulting advisory services for others, and hotel
reservations), or similar services.
7.
Because Respondent
is not engaged in any such activities, its use of the Domain Name was not intended
to, nor does it create confusion with any lawful trademarks of the
Complainants. For this same reason it is
evident that Respondent has not intentionally misled or diverted users away
from Complainants’ website.
8.
The
WhoIs record attached to the Complaint demonstrates that no E-commerce was conducted
from the site.
9.
The <hemphotel.com>
website cannot presently be accessed without the Internet Archive Wayback
Machine and therefore is not presently accessible by the general public.
10.
The
amount sought by Respondents as consideration to transfer the Domain Name to
Complainants was a reasonable transfer fee.
11.
The
services offered by Respondent on its websites are a bona fide offering of same.
12.
Respondent
registered the Domain Name prior to the effective date of the Policy and is
therefore not subject to its provisions.
C. Additional Submission by
Complainants
1.
There is
no evidence in the record that Respondent has ever been commonly known by the
name “Rockresort,” “Rockresorts,” or “rockresorts.com.”
2.
From
2001 to 2005, Respondent used the Domain Name to redirect Internet users to
Respondent’s domain name <hempworldhotel.com>, which it registered in
1998. It is currently an active,
commercial “pay-per-click” site, where domain name owners like Respondent attempt
to attract Internet users and then divert them to unrelated third party sites
for a fee. Currently, the Domain Name
redirects Internet users to a website located at the domain name <hempisreatblaswersse.com>,
another active, commercial “pay-per-click” site.
3.
After
the Complaint was filed Respondent demanded $19,000 to transfer the Domain Name
to Complainants.
D. Additional Submission by
Respondent
1.
Respondent
did not engage in activity for commercial gain nor did it compete with
Complainants, i.e., operate a similar
business. Respondents never had a
business operate at <rockresort.com>.
2.
Complainants
were negligent in waiting eight and one-half years to protest Respondent’s
registration and use of the Domain Name.
Their delay has caused their trademark rights to become weak and
meaningless over that time.
3.
Respondent’s
lack of awareness of Complainants’ ROCKRESORTS Marks until August 2007 is
important.
4.
Respondent
does not operate any of its domains or businesses on the internet on a
pay-per-click basis. The Domain Name is
not redirected to any domain with the specific economic gain of
pay-per-click. The domain <hempisreatblaswersse
.com> is not operated or owned by Respondent.
5.
Respondent
attaches value to the Domain Name and in order for it or any domain name to be
transferred, time and expense expended must be compensated.
6.
The
evidence submitted by Complainants is insufficient to establish their claim for
transfer of the Domain Name, and cases cited by Complainants are not applicable
to the circumstances of this case.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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 the 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 the Respondent
is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights;
(2) the 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.
Complainants registered
their ROCKRESORT mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”) (Reg. 1,896,413 issued May 30, 1995).
See, Annex B to Complaint. RockResorts
first claimed use of the ROCKRESORTS Marks in October 1968 for travel agency
services and hotel services, and in September 1999 for hotel consultancy
services and hotel reservations. The ROCKRESORTS
Marks have been extensively used and advertised by RockResorts and Vail and
enjoy a high degree of recognition in the Untied States. They are known throughout the
Complainants’ timely registration and subsequent use of the ROCKRESORT mark satisfactorily establishes their rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2003) (finding that the complainant’s registration of the MADD mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office established the complainant’s rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Ameridream, Inc. v. Russell, FA 677782 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 24, 2006) (holding that the complainant’s registration of the AMERIDREAM mark with the USPTO established its rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
The Domain Name (<rockresort.com>) is identical to RockResorts’ trademark ROCKRESORT except for the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com.” It contains Complainant’s protected mark in its entirety and merely adds the top-level domain “.com.” The mere addition of a generic term and a top level domain to an otherwise identical mark fails to distinguish the disputed domain name sufficiently from the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Fed’n of Gay Games, Inc. v. Hodgson, D2000-0432 (WIPO June 28, 2000) (finding that the domain name <gaygames.com> is identical to the complainant's registered trademark GAY GAMES); see also Snow Fun, Inc. v. O'Connor, FA 96578 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 8, 2001) (finding that the domain name <termquote.com> is identical to the complainant’s TERMQUOTE mark).
The Domain Name is
identical or confusingly similar to the ROCKRESORT trademark, in which the
Complainants have substantial and demonstrated rights.
Complainants assert and have presented
evidence that Respondent has not used and is not using the Domain Name in
connection with a bona fide offering
of goods or services, and that it is not making a legitimate noncommercial or
fair use of it, within the meaning of Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). They further assert and have presented
evidence that neither the Respondent nor Mr. Huijgen has any trademark or other
intellectual property right in the Domain Name.
Complainants further assert that Respondents have never been known by
the name ROCKRESORT, ROCKRESORTS, or <rockresort.com>.
Neither the name of the Respondent nor of its
agent and representative, Mr. Huijgen, contains any form of the name
“Rockresort” or any variation thereof.
Complainants having thus made a prima facie case in support of its allegations that Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Name, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does possess rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on the respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”).
Respondent has utterly failed to produce
evidence supporting any rights or legitimate interest it may have in respect of
the Domain Name. It claims a legitimate
interest based upon (i) its registration of the Domain Name and (ii) its use of
it in commerce for some eight and one-half years. Neither of these assertions supports its
claim.
The mere registration of a domain name does
not, in and of itself, confer upon the registrant any rights in the name for
the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Respondent has the burden to show its right
or legitimate interest in the Domain Name.
This necessarily implies that Respondent’s rights or legitimate
interests must come from a source beyond just the registration of a domain
name, since, if a Respondent could demonstrate rights in a domain name by
simply registering it, the UDRP would be superfluous. Self-serving assertions of rights or
legitimate interests in the domain name fails to satisfy Policy ¶
4(a)(ii). See Franzus Co. v. Cotner,
FA 125365 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 7, 2002) (after the inactive use of the
disputed domain name for five years, Respondent’s “unsupported, self-serving
allegations alone are insufficient to establish that Respondent has rights or
legitimate interests in respect of the domain name at issue.”). Ways in which a Respondent can show rights or
legitimate interests include but are not limited to: use or preparations to use
the domain name in connection with a bona
fide offering of goods or services prior to notice of any dispute (Policy ¶
4(c)(i)); the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name (Policy
¶ 4(c)(ii)); and Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of
the domain name (Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
Respondent must submit evidence of something other than a domain name
registration in order to establish rights or legitimate interests in that
domain name.
Respondent states that prior to the time it
registered the Domain Name, and even thereafter until Complainants protested
its use in August 2007, it was not aware of the existence of Complainants’
ROCKRESORTS Marks. This is not
persuasive. RockResorts’ prior registration
of its marks, and the extensive degree to which these marks were known and
recognized generally throughout the United States and elsewhere as identifying
RockResorts’ properties and services render Respondent’s claim of unawareness
not credible. Some marks, even though
registered with the USTPO, are not generally known, and a person might innocently
and unwittingly register an identical or similar domain name. In this case, however, the ROCKRESORTS Marks
were sufficiently famous that it is inconceivable that Respondent could not
have been aware of them when it registered the Domain Name.
Secondly, Respondent’s use of the name does
not confer any right or legitimate interest upon it because that use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services,
or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Based upon the undisputed
evidence presented by Complainants and supported by Annex C to the Complaint,
the Panel finds that from 2001 to 2005, Respondent used the Domain Name to
redirect Internet users to Respondent’s domain name <hempworldhotel.com>,
which it registered in 1998. The web
pages appearing at that site between 2001 and 2005 contain advertising for an
undertaking called “HempWorldHotels” which advertising includes inter alia the following:
·
“Can you
imagine a most hospitable and atmospheric place where all is made from hemp?”
·
“A night
at any of the HempWorldHotels will make this a HempWorld experience for you.”
·
“HempWorldHotels
are planned in
·
“Win-win
marketing and partnership opportunity for every producer of hemp products used
and sold in the HempWorldHotels, Shops and Restaurants.”
Currently, the Domain Name redirects Internet
users to a website located at <hempisreatblaswersse.com>, another active,
commercial site which directs Internet users to commercial websites unrelated
to the Complainants. None of these
websites relates or directs users to Respondent’s HempWorldHotels, but at least
one of them offers vacation rentals, rental beach homes in Cape San Blas, and
“luxury vacation rentals on the
Respondent asserts that those uses are
legitimate, at least as to Complainants, because Respondent is not in
competition with Complainants; it is not in the business of operating or
managing hotels or travel agencies, or in making reservations for same. Respondent claims it is only providing bona fide advertising or marketing
services for its clients.
That, however, is not true. Respondent uses the Domain Name to direct Internet
users to <hempisreatblaswersse.com>, which does offer competing
services. Moreover, even if Respondent
were providing only advertising or marketing services for others, that would be
defensible only if Respondent were using its own resources and property to do
so; here it is using the Domain Name, which contains a trademark belonging to
the Complainants. Respondent is not using
the Domain Name for a bona fide offering
of goods or services, and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or
fair use of it. See Charles Letts & Co. v. Citipublications,
FA 692150 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of
a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to display
links to the complainant’s competitors did 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 also Expedia, Inc. v.
Compaid, FA
520654 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s use of
the <expediate.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to a website
featuring links to travel services that competed with the complainant was not 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)).
Accordingly, the Panel finds and determines
that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
Domain Name.
At the time Respondent registered the Domain Name, the ROCKRESORTS
Marks were sufficiently famous to give constructive notice to Respondent that
its registration would violate Complainants’ rights. See
Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313, (Nat. Arb. Forum April 17,
2000) (evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of
commonly known mark at time of registration); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec.
9, 2000) (finding bad faith registration and use where it is “inconceivable
that the Respondent could make any active use of the disputed domain names
without creating a false impression of association with the Complainant”); see also AltaVista Co. v. GrandTotalFitness
Ltd., No. 2000-0848 (WIPO Oct. 7,
2000) (“[T]he Domain Names are so obviously connected with the Complainant that
its very use by someone with no connection with the Complainant suggests
opportunistic bad faith.”). The Domain
Name here is identical to the RockResorts’ ROCKRESORT trademark, and this demonstrates
bad faith, per se.
Respondent’s bad faith is also demonstrated by its use of the Domain
Name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other
on-line location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’
marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website
or location, or of a product or service on its web site or location, within the
meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Currently, Internet users seeking the <rockresort.com> web site are directed to a website located at <hempisreatblaswersse.com>, which
provides links to other websites offering services, some of which compete with
or are similar to Complaints’ services. The Panel finds that this creates
substantial confusion with the Complainants’
marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the goods
and services offered at the other web sites and also constitutes a
disruption of Complainant’s business within the meaning of Policy ¶
4(b)(iii). See Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (finding bad
faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent
used the disputed domain name to operate a commercial search engine with links
to the complainant’s competitors); see also Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt.,
FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent engaged
in bad faith use and registration by using domain names that were identical or
confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to redirect users to a website
that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant); see also Asbury Auto. Group, Inc. v.
Respondent denies that it has ever operated the Domain Name for commercial gain, which is central to a finding of bad faith based upon Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent also asserts that there is no evidence that <hempisreatblaswersse.com> is registered in its name, nor is there any evidence that <hempisreatblaswersse.com> is a “pay-per-click” website. All of this notwithstanding, there is strong circumstantial evidence that Respondent’s use of the Domain Name in connection with <hempisreatblaswersse.com> is for commercial gain.
As was found in connection with the
discussion of Respondent’s lack of right or legitimate interest in the Domain
Name, the use of that name to direct
Internet traffic to <hempisreatblaswersse.com> would not occur without Respondent’s
affirmative consent and approval, at a minimum. The fact that Respondent asked $29,000 and
$19,000 as consideration to transfer the Domain Name to Complainants
demonstrates that it is keenly aware of the monetary value of this name and
would not allow it to be used in this way except for commercial gain.
Secondly, although Respondent apparently does not own the domain name <hempisreatblaswersse.com>,
there is evidence that Respondent is closely associated with it. Hemp links the two. One cannot review the record in this case
without being struck by the Respondent’s affinity for hemp. Annex A to the Response is a partial list of
domains owned by the Respondent. It
consists of nine pages listing one domain name on each line, from top to bottom,
single spaced. Approximately three of
these pages contain names beginning with “hemp,” and “hemp” appears in numerous
other domain names, these latter accounting for perhaps a full additional page
of names. The <hempworldhotel.com>
website, which is owned by Respondent, offers numerous products containing or
related to hemp from the “HempWorld Store,” e.g.,
hemp soap, hemp body care, hemp clothing, and so forth. This strongly suggests that Respondent has
a financial or operational interest in the <hempisreatblaswersse.com> website, in which, again, “hemp” is
prominently featured.
Thirdly, Respondent emphatically
states that its does “not operate any
of its domains or businesses on the internet on a pay-per-click basis . . . .
Currently the domain name is not redirected to any domain with the specific
economic gain of pay-per-click.” As
discussed above, Respondent consents and approves of the Domain Name being used
to divert Internet traffic to <hempisreatblaswersse.com>. The
careful phrasing Respondent used to deny that the “specific economic gain” was
pay-per-click as quoted above suggests that while the specific arrangement may
not be pay-per-click, there is some form of commercial advantage flowing to it
from the <hempisreatblaswersse.com> website.
The foregoing factors are persuasive that, while specific details may
not be known, Respondent’s current use of the Domain Name is in fact for
commercial gain and the Panel so finds.
From 2001 to 2005, Respondent used the Domain Name to redirect Internet
users to Respondent’s domain name <hempworldhotel.com>, which it
registered in 1998. The web pages
appearing at that site between 2001 and 2005 contain advertising for an
undertaking called “HempWorldHotels,” as described in detail above. While the record contains no evidence that
Respondent currently uses the Domain Name to attract users to its own
hotel-related website, the fact that it did so for a period of some five years
ending two years ago corroborates the evidence of Respondent’s bad faith in its
current misuse of the Domain Name, as discussed above.
Finally, Respondent has offered to sell the
Domain Name for $29,000, an amount well in excess of Respondent’s out-of-pocket
costs. This also evidences registration
and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Matmut v. Tweed, D2000-1183 (WIPO Nov.
27, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) where the respondent stated
in communication with the complainant that it would be ready to sell the
<matmut.com> domain name registration for $10,000).
Accordingly, the Panel finds and determines
that Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.
DECISION
Having established all three elements required under the Policy, the
Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <rockresort.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Charles A. Kuechenmeister (Ret.)
Dated:
November 19, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page