8x8, Inc. v. 8x8 Mediacom Services Ltd
Claim Number: FA1309001520424
Complainant is 8x8, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Robert J. Crawford of Crawford Maunu PLLC, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is 8x8 Mediacom Services Ltd (“Respondent”), represented by Ari Goldberger of Esqwire.com, New Jersey, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <8x8.net> (the “Domain Name”), registered with VIVID DOMAINS, INC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
The Hon. Neil Anthony Brown QC; Mr Hector Ariel Manoff; and Mr Clive Lincoln Elliott QC, (Chair), as Panelists.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 19, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on September 19, 2013.
On September 25, 2013, VIVID DOMAINS, INC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the Domain Name is registered with VIVID DOMAINS, INC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. VIVID DOMAINS, INC has verified that Respondent is bound by the VIVID DOMAINS, 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 September 27, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 17, 2013 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@8x8.net. Also on September 27, 2013, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on October 17, 2013.
A timely Additional Submission was received from Complainant on October 22, 2013. The Additional Submission complies with Supplemental Rule 7.
A timely reply to Complainant’s Additional Submission was received from Respondent on October 28, 2013. The Reply Submission complies with Supplemental Rule #7.
On October 25, 2013, pursuant to Respondent’s request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Mr Neil Anthony Brown QC; Mr Hector Ariel Manoff; and Mr Clive Lincoln Elliott QC, (Chair), as Panelists.
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.
On October 31, 2013 the Panel made a procedural order, directing that Complainant supply within seven days relevant evidence (if any) in its possession to show the established presence of Complainant in the (Computer) industry and its use of the 8x8 trade mark prior to August 2001 (namely the date of registration of the Domain Name).
On November 4, 2013 Complainant filed a memorandum with relevant evidence responsive to the Order for Additional Submissions dated October 31, 2013.
On November 13, 2013 the Panel directed that Respondent could provide a response to Complainant’s memorandum of November 4, 2013 provided it was done by November 20, 2013. On November 22, 2013 the Panel was advised that no additional documentation had been received from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it provides hosted business VOIP phone services and a wide variety of cloud-based communications services to many different entities. Complainant contends that it has been using the 8X8 trade mark since at least as early as 1996 and that over the past 17 years it has invested a significant amount of time and resources to market its services under the 8X8 mark, and as a result has developed a strong reputation with substantial goodwill and customer loyalty.
Complainant advises that it owns U.S. federal trade mark applications and registrations for the mark 8X8 and operates a website at <www.8x8.com>.
Complainant notes that the Domain Name, which was registered on August 8, 2001, provides links to a variety of other websites offering telephone and VOIP services.
Complainant contends that Respondent has no statutory or common law trade mark rights or any other right or legitimate interest to the mark 8X8 or in the Domain Name, and that it is not an authorized representative of Complainant, and nor does it offer services in conjunction with Complainant. Complainant asserts that it has no relationship or affiliation with Respondent and believes that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name.
Complainant submits that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith and that it has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of commercial gain.
Complainant states that the Domain Name fully incorporates its 8X8 mark and is also identical to its trade name "8x8, Inc." For this reason Complainant suggests that consumers could easily be confused into believing that the Domain Name is sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant.
Complainant claims that the <8x8.net> website resolves to a website featuring links to third-party websites featuring telephone and VOIP services sold by competitors of Complainant. Complainant contends that Respondent is not making a legitimate, non-commercial or fair use of the Domain Name and suggests Respondent's primary purpose in registering and using the Domain Name is to mislead and divert web traffic intended for Complainant, to Respondent's website for Respondent's commercial benefit.
Complainant submits that Respondent has no legitimate reason for using the term "8X8," and the nature of Respondent's website is indicative of Respondent's bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent states that it registered the Domain Name because it is the domain name equivalent of the common computing, communication and digital information term "byte by byte," and is derived from the fact a "byte" is the most fundamental increment of data used throughout computing and digital communications -- consisting of 8 bits containing 0 or 1's.
Respondent says that almost all commercial computing and digital communications equipment and services process data incrementally byte by byte, thus the byte by byte or 8x8 terminology. This sequential processing of data byte by byte or "8x8" is the basis for world-wide technology and is the fundamental process shared by all computers, our electronic devices and digital communications.
The English language character "x" is the commonly used abbreviation for the word "by" and in the world of computing and communications technology abbreviations incorporating numerals and English language characters are used frequently. Respondent contends that the Domain Name was registered solely because it is the numerical representation for the term "byte by byte."
Respondent explains that while this may not be common to the average person, for someone in computing, programing, or digital communication this connection is obvious. Respondent states that this is the sole reason it registered the Domain Name and suggests that Complainant does not have exclusive rights to this common digital communication parlance.
Respondent asserts that it has used the Domain Name both in connection with the bona fide offering of goods and services and for a legitimate purpose and denies that it registered the Domain Name with the intent to sell it to Complainant, to disrupt Complainant's business, to prevent it from registering a domain name reflecting its mark, or to confuse users.
Respondent argues that it registered an available domain on August 8, 2001 when it expired and became available, over 12 years ago, along with other computing and digital related domain names.
Respondent advises that it has been registering common word domain names for investment and development, since 1999, long before the advent of pay-per-click advertising, and long before there were domain name parking services. Respondent contends that it registers common word domain names because they best fulfill the purpose of a domain name, which is to be easy to remember. Common word domains therefore serve well as online identities and, as a result, are commercially valuable. Respondent claims that its ultimate goal is to develop the domain names with highly customized websites that provide users and visitors with information and options for related services and products.
Respondent also states that it hosts underdeveloped domain names with domain name parking services which pay a share of the advertising revenue they generate, which is an industry-wide accepted practice. Respondent advises that it registered hundreds of other domain names in its portfolio and owns many domains that incorporate common terms and abbreviations.
Respondent denies that it registered the Domain Name with Complainant's trade mark in mind and claims it had no knowledge of Complainant, its website, its business name or trade mark at the time it registered the Domain Name.
Respondent advises that it hosts the Domain Name with Domain Sedo, a service which places pay-per-click ("PPC") advertising links based on a Google advertiser feed on hosted domain names, sharing the advertising revenue with the domain name owners. The Automated Sedo System display PPC links related to the common meaning of the Domain Name; telecommunications and digital communications and other search related queries. The links are auto-generated by Google and are constantly changing based on Google's keyword advertising inventory and user search behavior. Respondent claims that it owns many domain names that have websites where various Google auto-generated links appear for any given domain at any time and they do not target particular parties or companies.
Respondent submits that the long delay Complainant has taken to initiate this Complaint is sufficient to bar the Complaint under the Doctrine of Laches. Respondent contends that the delay demonstrates that laches is appropriate because Complainant was likely aware of the Domain Name over a decade ago, and knew that the Domain Name was already registered by Respondent and in use for over a decade before taking any action to obtain the Domain Name.
Respondent's rights and legitimate interest in the Domain Name are established because Respondent registered the Domain Name based on its meaning as a common computing, communication and digital information term and not to target a trade mark.
Respondent points out that it has provided sworn testimony that it had no knowledge of Complainant or its trade mark and did not register the Domain to target Complainant, whilst Complainant has provided no evidence to the contrary.
Respondent asserts that its common word term domain provides users of the website the opportunity to locate topics related to the descriptive meaning of the Domain Name and that its legitimate interest is bolstered by the fact that it uses the Domain Name to display topical and descriptive advertising links.
Respondent denies that this is a case of a cybersquatter looking for trade marks upon which to prey, and argues that the expiration of a domain name raises the presumption that any trade mark rights in such domain name have been abandoned, signaling to prospective registrants that it is available and can be registered in good faith.
C. Additional Submissions by Complainant
Complainant contends that Respondent's Response is largely generic and that it mischaracterizes the record. Complainant points out that Respondent argues that it registered the Domain Name because of its "common vernacular" meaning for a special 8-bit wide computer byte as is used for a "variety of applications," however, Respondent does not attempt to identify any such application.
Complainant notes that Respondent provides no basis for the conclusion/opinion in support of its technical common-vernacular arguments, and believes Respondent's proposition that the Domain Name is "a commonly used descriptive phrase" is flawed as each of the cases cited by Respondent are distinguishable because the names in those cases generically refer to goods/services at issue, whereas in the Domain Name, the term "8x8" is completely unrelated. Complainant notes further that an online search for "8x8" provides many hits for 8x8, Inc. and no references to the "byte by byte" phrase referenced by Respondent.
Complainant denies Respondent’s assertion of laches because Respondent claims it has had some legitimate purpose behind the registration and Respondent was unaware of Complainant's website at the time of the registration. Complainant believes that this argument falls flat because Complainant's instant action was not prompted at the time of the registration, but rather by the use of the Domain Name, which is solely for misdirecting by showing Complainant's business as one of numerous (VoIP-type telephony) businesses in competition with Complainant.
Complainant contends that the laches argument also fails because the delay alleged for the laches defense is not measured from the time of Respondent's registration but rather from when Complainant should have been put on notice of Respondent's first legitimate use – which has not yet occurred.
Complainant argues that Respondent has provided no evidence of how it uses or markets the Domain Name in connection with goods and services for Respondent's business. Neither has Respondent demonstrated any legitimate use of the 8X8 trade mark or company name, such as web pages, signage, business stationery, promotional materials, etc. Further, the term "8X8" and/or the company name "8x8 Mediacom Services Ltd" appears nowhere on Respondent's website.
Complainant submits that Respondent is acting in bad faith by first parking and then waiting to create the potential for misdirected customer traffic,
Complainant contends that after it filed the Amended Complaint with the Forum, Respondent's attorney contacted Complainant's attorney to discuss the possibility of settling this matter. Respondent's attorney indicated that Respondent would be willing to sell the Domain Name to Complainant in exchange for a payment of $5000. This offer occurred the day before Respondent filed its generic Response.
Complainant submits that the sole purpose for Respondent's registration was to park and await a time at which it would begin to disrupt Complainant's business and then attempt to sell the Domain Name to Complainant for an amount that might be less than the cost for resolving the dispute.
D. Additional Submissions by Respondent
Respondent claims that Complainant's Additional Submission is largely an improper attempt to present inadmissible evidence of settlement talks to prejudice the Panel against Respondent.
Respondent contends that settlement discussions between parties should not be disclosed and that a good faith offer to settle is not an admission of liability; rather it is an attempt to resolve a dispute.
Respondent points out that numerous dictionary definitions identify a wide range of computers from desktop to mainframe are based on 8 bit bytes, and a number of online dictionaries show common vernacular use of the term byte as comprised of 8 bit groups of data.
Respondent thus argues that it is clear that the computing community understands the connection between "8" and bytes and 8 bits per byte.
Respondent further relies on evidence of the use of the term 8x8 in the communication and computer industries, based on three examples:
1. VP-8x8 Communications product from Kramer Electronics LTD.
2. thinPAK 8x8 Computer component for Computer servers from Infn-teon Technologies AG, and
3. Midisport 8x8 Computer-Audio Interface from M-Audio USB MIDI Interface for USB equipped PC and Macintosh computers.
E. Additional Submissions by Complainant
On November 4, 2013 Complainant filed a memorandum with relevant evidence responsive to the Order for Additional Submissions dated October 31, 2013.
In its memorandum evidence was provided to show the established presence of Complainant in the industry prior to August 2001 including technical articles, newspaper reports, advertisements and press releases.
Complainant’s additional submission was accompanied by a declaration of Robert J Crawford, an attorney with the law firm of Crawford Maunu PLLC that has represented Complainant since in or about 1996 and verifying the contents of the additional submission.
The Panel concludes, having weighed up the evidence and submissions, that Complainant should prevail and that the Domain Name should be transferred to Complainant. The Panel also concludes that while the doctrine of laches may apply and operate as a defence that on the facts of this particular case it is unavailing to Respondent.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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.
Complainant submitted evidence to prove that 8x8, Inc. provides hosted business VOIP phone services and a wide variety of cloud-based communications services to many different entities under the 8X8 mark, that it has used the mark since at least as early as 1996, and that it has a trade mark registration of the 8X8 mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,297,204 registered December 7, 1999) and the stylized 8X8 mark & design (e.g., Reg. No. 2,212,310 registered December 22, 1998) with the USPTO; all of the registrations are prior to the domain name registration date, August 8, 2001.
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the 8X8 mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its USPTO registrations, notwithstanding the fact that Respondent appears to operate outside of the United States. See KCTS Television Inc. v. Get-on-the-Web Ltd., D2001-0154 (WIPO Apr. 20, 2001) (holding that it does not matter for the purpose of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) whether complainant’s mark is registered in a country other than that of respondent’s place of business).
The Panel finds that the <8x8.net> domain name is identical to Complainant’s 8X8 mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Little Six, Inc. v. Domain For Sale, FA 96967 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2001) (finding that <mysticlake.net> is plainly identical to complainant’s MYSTIC LAKE trade mark and service mark).
It is now well established that the initial obligation is on Complainant to make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that, if it makes out that case, the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut the prima facie case and to show that it has such a right or legitimate interest. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that complainant must first make a prima facie case that respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also 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.”).
Pursuant to that onus, Complainant first argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and that it has no affiliation or relationship with Respondent and, as Respondent has not adduced any evidence to rebut that suggestion, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. Despite the fact that Respondent is identified as “8x8 Mediacom Services Ltd” in the relevant WHOIS information, Respondent has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it is commonly known by the Domain Name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), so the Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name on this basis. See Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. v. SRW Hotels Worldwide, FA 214416 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 12, 2004) (“Though Respondent’s WHOIS information lists Respondent as ‘SRW Hotels Worldwide,’ part of which constitutes the disputed domain name, there is no evidence before the Panel that Respondent was actually commonly known by that name.”).
Complainant then relies on the submission that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name because it has not been using it 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). In that regard the Panel notes that the website housed at Respondent’s <8x8.net> domain name features links to websites offering telephone and VOIP services, which is one of the industries in which Complainant operates. Those links are thus links to Complainant’s competitors and it must be assumed that Respondent profits from click-through fees associated with the links displayed on its site. Moreover, although the Panel has given careful consideration to Respondent’s submissions in this regard, essentially Respondent is responsible for the content of the website. See Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2007) (“Although the websites accessed via the Disputed Domains may be operated by domain parking service providers, that activity is legally and practically attributable back to respondent.”).
The Panel holds therefore that Respondent has not used the Domain Name 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 Meyerson v. Speedy Web, FA 960409 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2007) (a respondent that has failed to offer any goods or services on its website other than links to a variety of third-party websites has not used a domain name in connection with 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)).
Having regard to these issues and the fact that Respondent has embodied Complainant’s trade mark in the Domain Name, the Panel finds that Complainant has made out its prima facie case. The onus therefore is on Respondent to show that it has a right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name.
Respondent’s argument in this respect is that the Domain Name is what is referred to variously as a common, dictionary, generic or descriptive expression and that it is being used for purposes that come within the meaning of that expression. Respondent submits that it registered the Domain Name because it refers to a common computing term.
Respondent has produced several references and sources intended to support its contentions concerning the general principle and the origin and meaning of the expression “8x8” and that evidence has been helpful to the Panel in its deliberations. The Panel agrees with Respondent on the general principle. The Panel also accepts that there is evidence to the effect that “byte-by-byte” is an expression used in computer and related terminology and that, as there are 8 “bits” in a “byte,” the sequential processing of data is carried out, in one sense, on the basis of sequences of 8 by 8 bits, meaning “byte-by-byte.” However, that does not mean that the expression “8x8” itself necessarily is or has become a common, dictionary, generic or descriptive expression. The Panel has examined closely the evidence tendered by Respondent to show that the expression “8x8” is in common usage, even common usage among those involved in “computing, programming, or digital communication” but is unable to reach that conclusion on the evidence adduced.
In any event, the submission of Respondent is that the Domain Name is “the equivalent” of the expression “byte-by-byte” and the Panel would require evidence of the nature of the expression actually used in the Domain Name, rather than its broad equivalent, before it could accept Respondent’s position. Thus, in this respect also, the evidence falls short of the evidence the Panel would need to enable it to conclude that the Domain Name is a common, dictionary, generic or descriptive expression as alleged.
As noted above, on November 13, 2013 the Panel provided Respondent with the opportunity to respond to Complainant’s memorandum of November 4, 2013. It did not avail itself of this opportunity and the reasonable inference is that it had no further basis to refute Complainant's assertions.
The Panel therefore finds that Respondent has not rebutted the prima facie case and is obliged to find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
The Domain Name resolves to a website featuring links to third-party websites, some of which offer products and services that directly compete with those offered by Complainant. The Panel therefore holds that Respondent’s registration and use of the <8x8.net> Domain Name illustrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assoc., FA 914854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (holding that where respondent’s website featured hyperlinks to competing websites and included a link to complainant’s website, respondent’s use of the <redeemaamiles.com> domain name constituted disruption under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
This Panel has already concluded that Respondent has not submitted sufficient evidence to prove that the expression “8x8” is a generic or common word for the goods of Respondent’s interest. In the absence of other evidence, the Panel is obliged to find that the choice of a domain name identical to a registered trade mark can be considered an act of bad faith.
The Panel also finds that Respondent has exhibited bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant in order to attempt to attract intentionally, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s <8x8.net> web site. See Maricopa Cmty. Coll. Dist. v. College.com, LLC, FA 536190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 22, 2005) (“The Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees for diverting Internet users to a competing website. Because Respondent’s domain name is identical to Complainant’s PHOENIX COLLEGE mark, Internet users accessing Respondent’s domain name may become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting website. Thus, Respondent’s use of the <phoenixcollege.com> domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
The Panel initially had doubts on the material before it whether Complainant was well enough known by August 8, 2001, the date when the Domain Name was registered, to enable it to conclude that Respondent registered the Domain Name with Complainant in mind. To clarify that situation the Panel issued an Order requiring Complainant to provide “any relevant evidence in its possession to show the established presence of Complainant in the industry and its use of the 8X8 trade mark or name prior to August 2001 (namely the date of registration of the Domain Name by Respondent).” Complainant complied with this order and provided evidence of the presence of Complainant and use of Complainant’s name back to 1996. Complainant also produced a Declaration by its attorney to the effect that he had acted for Complainant since 1996 and attended to its 8x8 trade mark and that Complainant had used the 8x8 trade mark in its business since that time.
The Panel has concluded on the basis of this evidence that on the balance of probabilities the Domain Name was registered with Complainant’s name and trade mark in mind.
Doctrine of Laches
Respondent has also argued that the proceedings should be barred because of the doctrine of laches. There has been a widely held view that the doctrine of laches cannot be applied as a defence since it is not contemplated by the Policy and this has been followed in decisions such as Drown Corp. v. Premier Wine & Spirits, FA 616805 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2006) and Disney Enters. Inc. v. Meyers, FA 697818 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 26, 2006). However, there have also been several decisions and commentary to the opposite effect and in which it has been said that delay may at least be taken into account. The Panel is of the view that there is no reason in principle why the doctrine of laches should not apply and operate as an effective defence.
In the instant case, the Panel notes that Complainant has not argued that laches is inapplicable in all cases, but it argues that it is not appropriate to apply it to the facts of the present proceedings. In that regard, Complainant points to the fact that its action has only been prompted by the use Respondent is making of the Domain Name, that Respondent has not provided evidence of related telecommunications business in which it is engaged and that the only use made by Respondent of the Domain Name is illegitimate as, Complainant submits, it has used the Domain Name to attract Internet users to competitors of Complainant. Taking everything into account, the Panel has concluded that, on balance, this is not an appropriate case to reject the claim on the basis of laches or delay.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the Domain Name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Mr Clive Lincoln Elliott QC, (Chair)
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC and Mr Hector Ariel Manoff as Panelists
Dated: November 26, 2013
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page