national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Avid Dating Life, Inc. v. Domain Management SPM c/o Domain Management

FA1002001309097

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Avid Dating Life, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Brody Stout of CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA.  Respondent is Domain Management SPM c/o Domain Management (“Respondent”), Western Samoa.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <asghleymadison.com>, <ashgleymadison.com>, <ashlemyadison.com>, <ashlerymadison.com>, <ashleuymadison.com>, <ashlewymadison.com>, <ashleymadiaon.com>, <ashleymadiason.com>, <ashleymadidon.com>, <ashleymadidson.com>, <ashleymadioson.com>, <ashleymadisaon.com>, <ashleymadisdon.com>, <ashleymadisob.com>, <ashleymadisobn.com>, <ashleymadisoin.com>, <ashleymadisomn.com>, <ashleymadisonb.com>, <ashleymadisonl.com>, <ashleymadisopn.com>, <ashleymadispon.com>, <ashleymadiuson.com>, <ashleymadoison.com>, <ashleymadoson.com>, <ashleymaduison.com>, <ashleymaduson.com>, <ashleymafdison.com>, <ashleymafison.com>, <ashleymasdison.com>, <ashleymdaison.com>, <ashleymnadison.com>, <ashleymsadison.com>, <ashleytmadison.com>, <ashleyumadison.com>, <ashlkeymadison.com>, <ashlreymadison.com>, <ashlweymadison.com>, and <sshleymadison.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 19, 2010; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 23, 2010.

 

On February 22, 2010, Wild West Domains, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <asghleymadison.com>, <ashgleymadison.com>, <ashlemyadison.com>, <ashlerymadison.com>, <ashleuymadison.com>, <ashlewymadison.com>, <ashleymadiaon.com>, <ashleymadiason.com>, <ashleymadidon.com>, <ashleymadidson.com>, <ashleymadioson.com>, <ashleymadisaon.com>, <ashleymadisdon.com>, <ashleymadisob.com>, <ashleymadisobn.com>, <ashleymadisoin.com>, <ashleymadisomn.com>, <ashleymadisonb.com>, <ashleymadisonl.com>, <ashleymadisopn.com>, <ashleymadispon.com>, <ashleymadiuson.com>, <ashleymadoison.com>, <ashleymadoson.com>, <ashleymaduison.com>, <ashleymaduson.com>, <ashleymafdison.com>, <ashleymafison.com>, <ashleymasdison.com>, <ashleymdaison.com>, <ashleymnadison.com>, <ashleymsadison.com>, <ashleytmadison.com>, <ashleyumadison.com>, <ashlkeymadison.com>, <ashlreymadison.com>, <ashlweymadison.com>, and <sshleymadison.com> domain names are registered with Wild West Domains, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  Wild West Domains, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, Inc. 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 February 24, 2010, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 16, 2010 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@asghleymadison.com, postmaster@ashgleymadison.com, postmaster@ashlemyadison.com, postmaster@ashlerymadison.com, postmaster@ashleuymadison.com, postmaster@ashlewymadison.com, postmaster@ashleymadiaon.com, postmaster@ashleymadiason.com, postmaster@ashleymadidon.com, postmaster@ashleymadidson.com, postmaster@ashleymadioson.com, postmaster@ashleymadisaon.com, postmaster@ashleymadisdon.com, postmaster@ashleymadisob.com, postmaster@ashleymadisobn.com, postmaster@ashleymadisoin.com, postmaster@ashleymadisomn.com, postmaster@ashleymadisonb.com, postmaster@ashleymadisonl.com, postmaster@ashleymadisopn.com, postmaster@ashleymadispon.com, postmaster@ashleymadiuson.com, postmaster@ashleymadoison.com, postmaster@ashleymadoson.com, postmaster@ashleymaduison.com, postmaster@ashleymaduson.com, postmaster@ashleymafdison.com, postmaster@ashleymafison.com, postmaster@ashleymasdison.com, postmaster@ashleymdaison.com, postmaster@ashleymnadison.com, postmaster@ashleymsadison.com, postmaster@ashleytmadison.com, postmaster@ashleyumadison.com, postmaster@ashlkeymadison.com, postmaster@ashlreymadison.com, postmaster@ashlweymadison.com, and postmaster@sshleymadison.com by e-mail.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On March 26, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Ralph Yachnin 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      Respondent’s <asghleymadison.com>, <ashgleymadison.com>, <ashlemyadison.com>, <ashlerymadison.com>, <ashleuymadison.com>, <ashlewymadison.com>, <ashleymadiaon.com>, <ashleymadiason.com>, <ashleymadidon.com>, <ashleymadidson.com>, <ashleymadioson.com>, <ashleymadisaon.com>, <ashleymadisdon.com>, <ashleymadisob.com>, <ashleymadisobn.com>, <ashleymadisoin.com>, <ashleymadisomn.com>, <ashleymadisonb.com>, <ashleymadisonl.com>, <ashleymadisopn.com>, <ashleymadispon.com>, <ashleymadiuson.com>, <ashleymadoison.com>, <ashleymadoson.com>, <ashleymaduison.com>, <ashleymaduson.com>, <ashleymafdison.com>, <ashleymafison.com>, <ashleymasdison.com>, <ashleymdaison.com>, <ashleymnadison.com>, <ashleymsadison.com>, <ashleytmadison.com>, <ashleyumadison.com>, <ashlkeymadison.com>, <ashlreymadison.com>, <ashlweymadison.com>, and <sshleymadison.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ASHLEY MADISON mark.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <asghleymadison.com>, <ashgleymadison.com>, <ashlemyadison.com>, <ashlerymadison.com>, <ashleuymadison.com>, <ashlewymadison.com>, <ashleymadiaon.com>, <ashleymadiason.com>, <ashleymadidon.com>, <ashleymadidson.com>, <ashleymadioson.com>, <ashleymadisaon.com>, <ashleymadisdon.com>, <ashleymadisob.com>, <ashleymadisobn.com>, <ashleymadisoin.com>, <ashleymadisomn.com>, <ashleymadisonb.com>, <ashleymadisonl.com>, <ashleymadisopn.com>, <ashleymadispon.com>, <ashleymadiuson.com>, <ashleymadoison.com>, <ashleymadoson.com>, <ashleymaduison.com>, <ashleymaduson.com>, <ashleymafdison.com>, <ashleymafison.com>, <ashleymasdison.com>, <ashleymdaison.com>, <ashleymnadison.com>, <ashleymsadison.com>, <ashleytmadison.com>, <ashleyumadison.com>, <ashlkeymadison.com>, <ashlreymadison.com>, <ashlweymadison.com>, and <sshleymadison.com> domain names.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <asghleymadison.com>, <ashgleymadison.com>, <ashlemyadison.com>, <ashlerymadison.com>, <ashleuymadison.com>, <ashlewymadison.com>, <ashleymadiaon.com>, <ashleymadiason.com>, <ashleymadidon.com>, <ashleymadidson.com>, <ashleymadioson.com>, <ashleymadisaon.com>, <ashleymadisdon.com>, <ashleymadisob.com>, <ashleymadisobn.com>, <ashleymadisoin.com>, <ashleymadisomn.com>, <ashleymadisonb.com>, <ashleymadisonl.com>, <ashleymadisopn.com>, <ashleymadispon.com>, <ashleymadiuson.com>, <ashleymadoison.com>, <ashleymadoson.com>, <ashleymaduison.com>, <ashleymaduson.com>, <ashleymafdison.com>, <ashleymafison.com>, <ashleymasdison.com>, <ashleymdaison.com>, <ashleymnadison.com>, <ashleymsadison.com>, <ashleytmadison.com>, <ashleyumadison.com>, <ashlkeymadison.com>, <ashlreymadison.com>, <ashlweymadison.com>, and <sshleymadison.com> domain names in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Avid Dating Life Inc., is a provider of online dating services.  Complainant has used the ASHLEY MADISON mark in connection with these services since 2002.  Complainant holds a registration of the ASHLEY MADISON mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,812,950 issued February 10, 2004).

 

Respondent, Domain Management SPM c/o Domain Management, registered all of the disputed domain names on September 24, 2007.  None of the disputed domain names resolve to any website.

 

Complainant offers evidence that Respondent has a history of registering domain names that infringe upon the trademark rights of others and has been ordered by previous UDRP panels to transfer the disputed domain names to the respective complainants. See Cricket Communications, Inc. v. Jason Banks a/k/a Domain Management SPM, FA 1273896 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 25, 2009); see also drugstore.com, inc. v. Domain Management SPM, FA 1279180 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 28, 2009); see also Gaiam, Inc. v. Domain Mangement SPM, FA 1237207 (Nat. Arb. Forum January 19, 2009); see also Instra Corporation Pty Ltd v. Domain Management SPM, D2009-1097 (WIPO Oct. 21, 2009).

 

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the ASHLEY MADISON mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 2,812,950 issued February 10, 2004).  See Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO); see also Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).

 

All of the disputed domain names contain common misspellings of Complainant’s ASHLEY MADISON mark.  The Panel finds that none of these changes to Complainant’s mark sufficiently distinguishes the disputed domain names from Complainant’s mark.  Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ASHLEY MADISON mark under 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 Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Powerclick, Inc., D2000-1259 (WIPO Dec. 1, 2000) (holding that the deliberate introduction of errors or changes, such as the addition of a fourth “w” or the omission of periods or other such “generic” typos do not change respondent’s infringement on a core trademark held by the complainant); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must make a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.  Once Complainant makes this showing, the burden then shifts to Respondent and Respondent must establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.  The Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently made its prima facie showing under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  The burden now shifts to Respondent, from whom no response was received.  See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent.  In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”); 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).”).  Although Respondent did not assert that it had any rights or allegations in the disputed domain names, the Panel elects to examine the record under Policy ¶ 4(c).

 

The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names list “Domain Management SPM c/o Domain Management” as the registrant, which does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names.  Respondent has not offered any evidence to suggest that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) applies in this case.  Moreover, Complainant asserts that it has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the ASHLEY MADISON mark.  Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark); see also 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).

 

None of Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to any website.  The Panel finds that Respondent’s failure to actively use the disputed domain names is not 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 VICORP Rests., Inc. v. Paradigm Techs. Inc., FA 702527 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s failure to use the disputed domain name for several years 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)); see also George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name under either Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where it failed to make any active use of the domain name).

 

Finally, the Panel finds that Respondent is engaged in typosquatting because Respondent is taking advantage of common misspellings of Complainant’s ASHLEY MADISON mark.  Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s engagement in typosquatting is further evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  See Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philippines, FA 877979 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 20, 2007) (concluding that by registering the <microssoft.com> domain name, the respondent had “engaged in typosquatting, which provides additional evidence that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Ebeyer, FA 175292 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2003) (finding that the respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because it “engaged in the practice of typosquatting by taking advantage of Internet users who attempt to access Complainant's <indymac.com> website but mistakenly misspell Complainant's mark by typing the letter ‘x’ instead of the letter ‘c’”).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Complainant offers evidence that Respondent has engaged in serial cybersquatting in the past.  Complainant references past WIPO and NAF decisions against Respondent as evidence of a pattern of bad faith registration of domain names of well-known parties.  See Cricket Communications, Inc. v. Jason Banks a/k/a Domain Management SPM, FA 1273896 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 25, 2009); see also drugstore.com, inc. v. Domain Management SPM, FA 1279180 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 28, 2009); see also Gaiam, Inc. v. Domain Mangement SPM, FA 1237207 (Nat. Arb. Forum January 19, 2009); see also Instra Corporation Pty Ltd v. Domain Management SPM, D2009-1097 (WIPO Oct. 21, 2009).  The Panel finds that Respondent’s history of registering domain names in bad faith is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).  See Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Anderson, FA 198809 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 20, 2003) (finding a pattern of registering domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) when the respondent previously registered domain names incorporating well-known third party trademarks); 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).  Complainant further contends that Respondent’s registration of thirty-eight domain names that infringe upon its trademark rights are evidence of bad faith registration and use.  The Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii), where it has registered four domain names that infringe upon the trademark rights of Complainant.  See Harcourt, Inc. v. Fadness, FA 95247 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that one instance of registration of several infringing domain names satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also Armstrong Holdings, Inc. v. JAZ Assocs., FA 95234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding that the respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) by registering multiple domain names that infringe upon others’ famous and registered trademarks).   

 

Since Respondent registered the disputed domain names on September 24, 2007, none of the disputed domain names have resolved to an active website.  Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s failure to actively use the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s [failure to make an active use] of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy); see also aravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the domain name, and that [failure to make an active use] of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith).

 

Finally, the Panel finds that Respondent’s aforementioned engagement in typosquatting is further evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Nextel Commc’ns Inc. v. Geer, FA 477183 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 15, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the <nextell.com> domain name was in bad faith because the domain name epitomized typosquatting in its purest form); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philippines, FA 877979 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 20, 2007) (finding bad faith registration and use of the <microssoft.com> domain name as it merely misspelled the complainant’s MICROSOFT mark). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the  <asghleymadison.com>, <ashgleymadison.com>, <ashlemyadison.com>, <ashlerymadison.com>, <ashleuymadison.com>, <ashlewymadison.com>, <ashleymadiaon.com>, <ashleymadiason.com>, <ashleymadidon.com>, <ashleymadidson.com>, <ashleymadioson.com>, <ashleymadisaon.com>, <ashleymadisdon.com>, <ashleymadisob.com>, <ashleymadisobn.com>, <ashleymadisoin.com>, <ashleymadisomn.com>, <ashleymadisonb.com>, <ashleymadisonl.com>, <ashleymadisopn.com>, <ashleymadispon.com>, <ashleymadiuson.com>, <ashleymadoison.com>, <ashleymadoson.com>, <ashleymaduison.com>, <ashleymaduson.com>, <ashleymafdison.com>, <ashleymafison.com>, <ashleymasdison.com>, <ashleymdaison.com>, <ashleymnadison.com>, <ashleymsadison.com>, <ashleytmadison.com>, <ashleyumadison.com>, <ashlkeymadison.com>, <ashlreymadison.com>, <ashlweymadison.com>, and <sshleymadison.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist

Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)

Dated:  April 7, 2010

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum