Fossil Group, Inc. v. Bhargav Antani
Claim Number: FA1311001527891
Complainant is Fossil Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Laura A. Brock of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Bhargav Antani (“Respondent”), New Jersey, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <fossil.name>, registered with Name.com, Inc.
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.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 1, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on November 1, 2013.
On November 1, 2013, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <fossil.name> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, 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 November 4, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 25, 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@fossil.name. Also on November 4, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 26, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Fossil is the owner of numerous proprietary marks used in connection with watches, jewelry, fashion accessories, handbags, leather goods and clothing as well as retail stores featuring watches, jewelry, fashion accessories, handbags, leather goods and clothing and other related goods and services. Specifically, Fossil is the owner of numerous registrations for the trademark “FOSSIL” and marks containing “FOSSIL” (collectively, the “FOSSIL Marks”) on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and in jurisdictions throughout the world. Of particular relevance to this proceeding are: (a) U.S. Registration No. 1467255 for the mark FOSSIL registered in 1987 for watches in Class 14; and (b) U.S. Registration No. 2599215 for the mark FOSSIL registered in 2002 for jewelry in Class 14. Fossil recently changed its corporate name from Fossil, Inc. to Fossil Group, Inc. and is in the process of recording this name change in connection with its trademark portfolio.
The FOSSIL mark was first used by Fossil (under its former company name Overseas Products International, Inc.) in commerce at least as early as 1985, was continuously used thereafter, and is still in use in the United States and around the world, including in Thailand where the Respondent resides. Fossil has invested substantial effort and expense to develop goodwill in the FOSSIL Marks and to cause consumers throughout the world to recognize the FOSSIL Marks as distinctly and exclusively designating products associated with the Complainant. More than 25 years of promotional efforts have made the FOSSIL Marks famous and distinctive. These efforts have resulted in the sale of Fossil’s products in department stores, Fossil branded retail and outlet stores, and specialty retail stores in more than 90 countries. The FOSSIL watch brand was named the number three brand in 2008 in the Womens Wear Daily Top 100 and the number two brand in 2013 in the same survey.
In addition to its sales through retail stores, Fossil generates significant revenue from sales through the Complainant’s official website, www.fossil.com. Fossil first established its ecommerce website at www.fossil.com in November of 1996. Fossil owns the domain name registration for <fossil.com>, which was registered with Network Solutions on June 3, 1995.
ICANN Rule 3(b)(viii).
FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS
This Complaint is based on the following factual and legal grounds: ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix).
A. IDENTICAL DOMAIN NAME (ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(1) and ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(i)):
The domain name <fossil.name> is identical to Complainant’s famous FOSSIL mark, which was registered as a trademark long before Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 31, 2013. In fact, Complainant’s FOSSIL mark had been used for more than 25 years and had become famous long prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name.
Respondent’s domain name <fossil.name> contains Complainant’s famous “FOSSIL” mark and the common generic TLD “.name”. This change is not sufficient to distinguish the domain name from the FOSSIL Mark. The inclusion of the top level domain name, “.name” has no effect on the determination of whether the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. The mere addition of a gTLD does not sufficiently distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Fossil, Inc. v. Amorvine Global Ltd., FA954070 (Nat. Arb. Forum, May 17, 2007) and Abbott Laboratories v. Whois Service c/o Belize Domain WHOIS Service, FA0903001254682 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 14, 2009)(“the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a registered mark”).
Accordingly, the domain name is identical to Complainant’s FOSSIL Mark under Policy 4(a)(i).
B. NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN DOMAIN NAME (ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(2) and ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(ii):
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by Complainant’s FOSSIL mark, nor has Respondent used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
WHOIS identifies Respondent as Bhargav Antani. Respondent is not commonly known by Complainant’s FOSSIL mark. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way. Respondent is not licensed by Complainant to use Complainant’s FOSSIL mark. Respondent is not an authorized vendor, supplier, or distributor of Complainant’s goods and services. See Fossil, Inc. v. Juan Cabral, FA1469662 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Dec. 18, 2012) (finding that where WHOIS identifies a person or entity with no affiliation with Fossil that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name according to Policy ¶4(c)(ii)); Fossil, Inc. v. cheng gong, FA 1458182 (Nat. Arb. Forum, October 2, 2012) (finding that Respondent’s lack of affiliation with Fossil showed that he was not commonly known by the disputed domain name and thus lacked rights and legitimate interests in the domain name); Broadcom Corp. v. Ibecom PLC, FA 361190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2004) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where there was nothing in the record to indicate that Respondent was commonly known by the domain name); and Tercent Inc. v. Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (finding that the WHOIS information, and its failure to imply that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, is a factor in determining that Policy ¶4(c)(ii) does not apply).
The disputed domain name goes to a site that prominently displays the domain name fossil.name at the top and contains category links entitled “Related Links” and “Sponsored Links” to third party sites that are not owned or controlled by Fossil. When the user clicks on one of the “Related Links,” the site displays additional “Sponsored Links” to third party sites, most of which are not owned or controlled by Fossil, and some of which are for Fossil’s direct competitors who also sell watches and handbags. Presumably, Respondent receives click through revenues in connection with these links. The use of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s FOSSIL trademark to attract computer users to Respondent’s own site is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See Fossil Group, Inc. v. olivia lim, FA 1514644 (Nat. Arb. Forum, September 20, 2013)(finding that the use of <fossilwatches.info> for a site that had links to competitors was not 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)); Fossil, Inc. v. Galina Vilyus, FA969285 (Nat. Arb. Forum, May 29, 2007)(finding that the use of <fossil-watches.info> for a site that had links to watches produced by Complainant and its competitors was not 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); Fossil, Inc. v. cheng gong, FA 1458182 (Nat. Arb. Forum, October 2, 2012)(finding that Respondent’s efforts to use the FOSSIL mark to divert customers for Respondent’s own commercial gain was not 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); Microsoft Corporation v. OzGrid Business Applications, FA 314308 (Nat. Arb. Forum, October 6, 2004); see also U.S. Franchise Sys. Inc. v. Howell, FA 152457 (Nat. Arb. Forum, May 6, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark and the goodwill surrounding the mark as a means of attracting Internet users to an unrelated business was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); Nike, Inc. v. Dias, FA 135016 (Nat. Arb. Forum, January 7, 2002) (finding no bona fide offering of goods or services where Respondent used Complainant’s mark without authorization to attract Internet users to its website).
Additionally, many of the sites that a user is taken to display information about and encourage the sale of watches that are made by parties that are not affiliated with Fossil in any way. Seeking to attract traffic and revenue using Complainant’s famous trademark, and promoting parties unrelated to Complainant, does not reflect 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 Fossil, Inc. v. Galina Vilyus, FA969285 (Nat. Arb. Forum, May 29, 2007)(finding that the use of <fossil-watches.info for a site that had links to watches produced by Complainant and its competitors was not 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); Fossil, Inc. v. Fong, FA 1116234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 10, 2007)(finding no legitimate interest where the domain name resolved to a website featuring links to third party websites); 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 paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy); Vance International, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2007)(finding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself profiting commercially from the click-through fees); WeddingChannel.com Inc. v. Vasiliev, FA156716 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to the complainant’s mark, where the respondent presumably received a referral fee for each misdirected Internet user, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by the Policy); and TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services).
For the above reasons, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <fossil.name> domain name.
C. REGISTRATION AND USE IN BAD FAITH (ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(3) and ICANN Policy 4(a)(iii)):
Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
At the time Respondent registered the disputed domain, Complainant’s FOSSIL mark was unquestionably famous and familiar to Internet users. Here, it is clear that Respondent was not only familiar with Complainant’s famous trademark at the time of registration of the domain name, but intentionally adopted a name identical to the FOSSIL Mark in order to create an association with Complainant and its products.
Respondent registered and is using the <fossil.name> domain name in bad faith. By using the <fossil.name> domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s FOSSIL Marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent with Complainant. Unauthorized use of Complainant’s mark to divert computer users for commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See Fossil Group, Inc. v. olivia lim, FA 1514644 (Nat. Arb. Forum, September 20, 2103) (finding that the domain name <fossilwatches.info> was used to promote unrelated and competing goods through a misappropriation of Complainant’s trademark for the sole gain of Respondent which established bad faith); Fossil, Inc. v.Galina Vilyus, FA969285 (Nat. Arb. Forum, May 29, 2007)(finding bad faith where Respondent used <fossil-watches.info> for a site that contained links to third party sites where Respondent received click through revenue).
Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its famous mark is evidence of bad faith registration and use with regard to Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (holding that “there is a legal presumption of bad faith, when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s trademarks, actually or constructively”); Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2002) (finding that "[w]here an alleged infringer chooses a mark he knows to be similar to another, one can infer an intent to confuse"); Yahoo!, Inc. v. Ashby, D2000-0241 (WIPO June 14, 2000)(finding that the fame of the YAHOO! mark negated any plausible explanation for Respondent’s registration of the <yahooventures.com> domain name); and Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Fisher, D2000-1412 (WIPO Dec. 18, 2000)(finding that Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s EXXON mark given the worldwide prominence of the mark and thus Respondent registered the name in bad faith).
Furthermore, Respondent’s web site promotes and links to third parties not affiliated with Complainant, including third parties promoting competing goods. Presumably Respondent receives revenue from this scheme, and this is evidence of bad faith. Nortel Networks Ltd. v. BuyMeBuyMe.com Inc., FA0604000671847 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2006)(deriving revenue from links to competitors is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv)); Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003)(finding bad faith where the disputed domain name “provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees’”); Fossil, Inc. v. Fong, FA 1116234 (Nat. Arb. Forum, January 10, 2007)(holding that respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith by diverting computer users to a website featuring links to Complainant’s competitors); and MySpace, Inc. v. Myspace Bot, FA 672161 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2006) (holding that the respondent registered and used the <myspacebot.com> domain name in bad faith by diverting Internet users seeking the complainant’s website to its own website for commercial gain because the respondent likely profited from this diversion scheme).
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii).
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
(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.
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 the following three elements to obtain an order canceling or transferring a domain name:
(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.
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.”).
Complainant has rights in the FOSSIL mark, used in connection with retails stores selling watches, jewelry, fashions accessories, clothing, and leather goods. Complainant owns trademark registrations with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., 1,467,255 registered December 1, 1987), inter alia. Complainant has adequately established its rights in the FOSSIL mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i) through a valid trademark registration with the USPTO. See Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc. v. Machuszek, FA 945052 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 7, 2007) (finding that “Complainant has established rights in the VICTORIA’S SECRET mark through [multiple] registrations [with the USPTO] under Policy ¶4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <fossil.name> domain name is identical to Complainant’s FOSSIL mark. The disputed domain name includes Complainant’s mark in its entirety, while only adding the gTLD “.name.” The addition of a gTLD is irrelevant when analyzing a disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding <pomellato.com> identical to the complainant’s mark because the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not relevant). Respondent’s <fossil.name> domain name is identical to Complainant’s FOSSIL mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(i) satisfied.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(ii). Then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it has rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the 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.”).
Complainant claims Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <fossil.name> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its FOSSIL mark in any way. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “Bhargav Antani.” Past panels have looked to the WHOIS record, whether the respondent was authorized to use the trademark, and the evidence on record as whole in determining whether the respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Educ. Broad. Corp. v. DomainWorks Inc., FA 882172 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 18, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <thirteen.com> domain name based on all evidence in the record, and the respondent did not counter this argument in its response). Based upon the fact Respondent was not authorized by Complainant to use the FOSSIL mark and the WHOIS information, this Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the <fossil.name> domain name under Policy ¶4(c)(ii).
The <fossil.name> domain name resolves to a website displaying third-party links, some of which link to Complainant’s direct competitors. Complainant presumes Respondent receives click-through revenue from these links. The links on the resolving website include “Tj Maxx Online,” “Fast Fashion Bags 90% off,” and “Wholesale Fashion Jewelry.” Using an identical domain name to display links to a complainant’s competitors does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. 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)). Therefore, Respondent is not making 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), because Respondent is using the <fossil.name> domain name to promote links of Complainant’s competitors.
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) satisfied.
Complainant claims Respondent registered and is using the <fossil.name> domain name in bad faith. Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract Internet users for Respondent’s own commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s FOSSIL mark. The resolving website features links to Complainant’s competitors, and Complainant believes Respondent is receiving click-through revenue from these links (which Respondent does not deny). The links on the resolving website include “Tj Maxx Online,” “Fast Fashion Bags 90% off,” and “Wholesale Fashion Jewelry.” Using an identical domain name to promote links of a complainant’s competitors in an attempt to obtain click-through revenue constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”). Therefore, Respondent registered and is using the <fossil.name> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv) because the disputed domain name promotes links to Complainant’s competitors from which Respondent presumably receives click-through revenue.
Complainant claims Respondent knew about Complainant’s FOSSIL mark prior to registering the <fossil.name> domain name because Complainant’s mark has been in use for over twenty-five years and has achieved fame and familiarity among Internet users. Constructive notice is generally regarded as insufficient to support a finding of bad faith. See Sears Brands, LLC v. Airhart, FA 1350469 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 2, 2010) (stating that constructive notice generally will not suffice for a finding of bad faith). However, Respondent actually aware of Complainant’s mark based upon the use of the domain. Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was "well-aware of the complainant's YAHOO! mark at the time of registration).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered the <fossil.name> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist
Dated: Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page