national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Staples, Inc. and Staples the Office Superstore, LLC v. Domcharme Group c/o Jean Lucas a/k/a Juga Fish

Claim Number: FA1103001380088

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Staples, Inc. and Staples the Office Superstore, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA.  Respondent is Domcharme Group c/o Jean Lucas a/k/a Juga Fish (“Respondent”), Canada.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <satples.com>, <sraples.com>, <srtaples.com>, <stales.com>, <stapkes.com>, <stapkles.com>, <staplea.com>, <staplees.com>, <staplews.com>, <staplkes.com>, <staplpes.com>, <staplrs.com>, <staplse.com>, <staplwes.com>, <staplws.com>, <stapoles.com>, <stasples.com>, <straples.com>, <stsples.com>, <sttaples.com>, <syaples.com>, <tsaples.com>, and <xtaples.com>, registered with Enom, 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 March 24, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on March 24, 2011.

 

On March 24, 2011 and March 25, 2011, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <satples.com>, <sraples.com>, <srtaples.com>, <stales.com>, <stapkes.com>, <stapkles.com>, <staplea.com>, <staplees.com>, <staplews.com>, <staplkes.com>, <staplpes.com>, <staplrs.com>, <staplse.com>, <staplwes.com>, <staplws.com>, <stapoles.com>, <stasples.com>, <straples.com>, <stsples.com>, <sttaples.com>, <syaples.com>, <tsaples.com>, and <xtaples.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 disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

 

On March 28, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 18, 2011 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@satples.com, postmaster@sraples.com, postmaster@srtaples.com, postmaster@stales.com, postmaster@stapkes.com, postmaster@stapkles.com, postmaster@staplea.com, postmaster@staplees.com, postmaster@staplews.com, postmaster@staplkes.com, postmaster@staplpes.com, postmaster@staplrs.com, postmaster@staplse.com, postmaster@staplwes.com, postmaster@staplws.com, postmaster@stapoles.com, postmaster@stasples.com, postmaster@straples.com, postmaster@stsples.com, postmaster@sttaples.com, postmaster@syaples.com, postmaster@tsaples.com, and postmaster@xtaples.com.  Also on March 28, 2011, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On April 19, 2011, 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

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 <satples.com>, <sraples.com>, <srtaples.com>, <stales.com>, <stapkes.com>, <stapkles.com>, <staplea.com>, <staplees.com>, <staplews.com>, <staplkes.com>, <staplpes.com>, <staplrs.com>, <staplse.com>, <staplwes.com>, <staplws.com>, <stapoles.com>, <stasples.com>, <straples.com>, <stsples.com>, <sttaples.com>, <syaples.com>, <tsaples.com>, and <xtaples.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s STAPLES mark.

 

2.    Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <satples.com>, <sraples.com>, <srtaples.com>, <stales.com>, <stapkes.com>, <stapkles.com>, <staplea.com>, <staplees.com>, <staplews.com>, <staplkes.com>, <staplpes.com>, <staplrs.com>, <staplse.com>, <staplwes.com>, <staplws.com>, <stapoles.com>, <stasples.com>, <straples.com>, <stsples.com>, <sttaples.com>, <syaples.com>, <tsaples.com>, and <xtaples.com> domain names.

 

3.    Respondent registered and used the <satples.com>, <sraples.com>, <srtaples.com>, <stales.com>, <stapkes.com>, <stapkles.com>, <staplea.com>, <staplees.com>, <staplews.com>, <staplkes.com>, <staplpes.com>, <staplrs.com>, <staplse.com>, <staplwes.com>, <staplws.com>, <stapoles.com>, <stasples.com>, <straples.com>, <stsples.com>, <sttaples.com>, <syaples.com>, <tsaples.com>, and <xtaples.com> domain names in bad faith.

 

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

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Staples the Office Superstore, LLC, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Complainant, Staples, Inc.  For the purposes of this decision, both Complainants will be referred to as the singular Complainant.  Complainant markets and sells office supplies under its STAPLES mark.  Complainant holds multiple trademark registrations for its STAPLES mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,438,390 issued April 28, 1987).

 

Respondent registered the <satples.com>, <sraples.com>, <srtaples.com>, <stales.com>, <stapkes.com>, <stapkles.com>, <staplea.com>, <staplees.com>, <staplews.com>, <staplkes.com>, <staplpes.com>, <staplrs.com>, <staplse.com>, <staplwes.com>, <staplws.com>, <stapoles.com>, <stasples.com>, <straples.com>, <stsples.com>, <sttaples.com>, <syaples.com>, <tsaples.com>, and <xtaples.com> domain names no earlier than May 4, 2001.  The <satples.com>, <sraples.com>, <srtaples.com>, <stales.com>, <stapkes.com>, <stapkles.com>, <staplea.com>, <staplees.com>, <staplews.com>, <staplkes.com>, <staplrs.com>, <staplwes.com>, <staplws.com>, <stapoles.com>, <stasples.com>, <straples.com>, <stsples.com>, <sttaples.com>, <syaples.com>, <tsaples.com>, and <xtaples.com> domain names resolve to websites that provide information about Complainant and also contain advertisements and hyperlinks relating to Complainant’s competitors. The <staplse.com> and <staplpes.com> domain names fail to resolve to active websites.

 

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

 

Complainant provides evidence of multiple trademark registrations with the USPTO for its STAPLES mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,438,390 issued April 28, 1987).  While Respondent resides in Canada, previous panels have determined that a complainant is not required to register a domain name within the country a respondent resides in.  See 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).  Therefore, the Panel finds Complainant has established rights in its STAPLES mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, [the] complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).

 

Respondent’s disputed domain names all incorporate some type of misspelling of Complainant’s STAPLES mark: the transposition of two letters, the replacement of one letter with another letter, the addition of a letter, or the removal of a letter.  The Panel finds any such misspellings or combination of misspellings fail to distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s mark.  See Google Inc. v. Jon G., FA 106084 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2002) (finding <googel.com> to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s GOOGLE mark and noting that “[t]he transposition of two letters does not create a distinct mark capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity, as the result reflects a very probable typographical error”); see also Belkin Components v. Gallant, FA 97075 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2001) (finding the <belken.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant's BELKIN mark because the name merely replaced the letter “i” in the complainant's mark with the letter “e”); see also Granarolo S.p.A. v. Dinoia, FA 649854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (finding that the <granarolo.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered G GRANAROLO mark); see also Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (“The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant’s mark does not remove the respondent’s domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to the complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).  All of the disputed domain names also incorporate the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”  As gTLDs are a required element in a domain name, the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.  See Nev. State Bank v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 204063 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“It has been established that the addition of a generic top-level domain is irrelevant when considering whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar under the Policy.”).  Thus, the Panel concludes Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s STAPLES mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

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

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <satples.com>, <sraples.com>, <srtaples.com>, <stales.com>, <stapkes.com>, <stapkles.com>, <staplea.com>, <staplees.com>, <staplews.com>, <staplkes.com>, <staplpes.com>, <staplrs.com>, <staplse.com>, <staplwes.com>, <staplws.com>, <stapoles.com>, <stasples.com>, <straples.com>, <stsples.com>, <sttaples.com>, <syaples.com>, <tsaples.com>, and <xtaples.com> domain names.  Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  The Panel finds Complainant has made a sufficient prima facie case.  Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel may assume that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.  However, the Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c).  See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding the “complainant must first make a prima facie case that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to [the] respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”); see also Law Soc’y of Hong Kong v. Domain Strategy, Inc., HK-0200015 (ADNDRC Feb. 12, 2003) (“A respondent is not obligated to participate in a domain name dispute . . . but the failure to participate leaves a respondent vulnerable to the inferences that flow naturally from the assertions of the complainant and the tribunal will accept as established assertions by the complainant that are not unreasonable.”).

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names.  Complainant contends that the WHOIS information is not similar to the disputed domain names, and the Panel agrees.  Complainant claims it has not given Respondent permission to use Complainant’s STAPLES mark in a domain name.  Respondent has failed to present any evidence that would contradict Complainant’s assertions.  Consequently, the Panel determines that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name); see also Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent’s <satples.com>, <sraples.com>, <srtaples.com>, <stales.com>, <stapkes.com>, <stapkles.com>, <staplea.com>, <staplees.com>, <staplews.com>, <staplkes.com>, <staplrs.com>, <staplwes.com>, <staplws.com>, <stapoles.com>, <stasples.com>, <straples.com>, <stsples.com>, <sttaples.com>, <syaples.com>, <tsaples.com>, and <xtaples.com> domain names resolve to websites that, according to the screen shots provided by Complainant, contain text describing Complainant and also contain banner advertisements resolving to Complainant’s competitors, from which Respondent likely receives pay-per-click fees.  The Panel holds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (holding that using an identical or confusingly similar domain name to earn click-through fees via sponsored links to a complainant’s competitors does not represent 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 Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kamble, FA 918556 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (holding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name was 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)).

 

Respondent fails to make an active use of the <staplse.com> and <staplpes.com> domain names.  The Panel finds this failure is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also TMP Int’l, Inc. v. Baker Enters., FA 204112 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“[T]he Panel concludes that Respondent's [failure to make an active use] of the domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).

 

All of the disputed domain names contain common misspellings of Complainant’s STAPLES mark.  The Panel determines that this constitutes typosquatting by Respondent, which is evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  See Guinness UDV N. Am., Inc. v. Dallas Internet Servs., D2001-1055 (WIPO Dec. 12, 2001) (finding the <smirnof.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s SMIRNOFF mark because merely removing the letter “f” from the mark was insignificant); see also Marriott Int'l, Inc. v. Seocho, FA 149187 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 28, 2003) (finding that the respondent's <marrriott.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant's MARRIOTT mark).

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Respondent uses the <satples.com>, <sraples.com>, <srtaples.com>, <stales.com>, <stapkes.com>, <stapkles.com>, <staplea.com>, <staplees.com>, <staplews.com>, <staplkes.com>, <staplrs.com>, <staplwes.com>, <staplws.com>, <stapoles.com>, <stasples.com>, <straples.com>, <stsples.com>, <sttaples.com>, <syaples.com>, <tsaples.com>, and <xtaples.com> domain names to host a website containing information about Complainant and Complainant’s office supply business.  The websites also feature advertisements that resolve to third-parties that compete with Complainant.  Internet users may purchase office supplies from Complainant’s competitors instead of Complainant due to Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names.  The Panel holds that this use constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a directory website containing commercial links to the websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (“This Panel concludes that by redirecting Internet users seeking information on Complainant’s educational institution to competing websites, Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).

 

Respondent’s <satples.com>, <sraples.com>, <srtaples.com>, <stales.com>, <stapkes.com>, <stapkles.com>, <staplea.com>, <staplees.com>, <staplews.com>, <staplkes.com>, <staplrs.com>, <staplwes.com>, <staplws.com>, <stapoles.com>, <stasples.com>, <straples.com>, <stsples.com>, <sttaples.com>, <syaples.com>, <tsaples.com>, and <xtaples.com> domain names contain text describing Complainant and advertisements for Complainant’s competitors.  The Panel determines that Respondent has used confusingly similar domain names and provided the text in order to create confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain names.  The Panel concludes Respondent is attempting to profit from that confusion through the display of the advertisements, from which Respondent likely receives click-through fees.  Thus, the Panel holds that Respondent’s registration and use constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant); see also Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees.   Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).

 

The Panel notes that the examples of bad faith registration and use prescribed in Policy ¶ 4(b) are intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive.  See Digi Int’l Inc. v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth certain circumstances, without limitation, that shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith)   Thus, the Panel may find bad faith beyond the perimeters of Policy ¶ 4(b).  See CBS Broad., Inc. v. LA-Twilight-Zone, D2000-0397 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (“[T]he Policy expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence that a domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith”).    

 

Respondent’s <staplse.com> and <staplpes.com> domain names fail to resolve to active websites.  The Panel finds Respondent’s inability to make an active use of the domain names is evidence of 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 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).

 

This Panel has previously determined that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting with all of the disputed domain names.  The Panel finds Respondent’s typosquatting is further evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  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 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 <satples.com>, <sraples.com>, <srtaples.com>, <stales.com>, <stapkes.com>, <stapkles.com>, <staplea.com>, <staplees.com>, <staplews.com>, <staplkes.com>, <staplpes.com>, <staplrs.com>, <staplse.com>, <staplwes.com>, <staplws.com>, <stapoles.com>, <stasples.com>, <straples.com>, <stsples.com>, <sttaples.com>, <syaples.com>, <tsaples.com>, and <xtaples.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED.

 

 

Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist

Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)

 

Dated:  April 19, 2011

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page