national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Old National Bancorp v. Kirk Mann

Claim Number:  FA0509000563611

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Old National Bancorp (“Complainant”), represented by Carrie L. Johnson, 2100 IDS Center, 80 S. Eighth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402.  Respondent is Kirk Mann (“Respondent”), 1535 Westminster Rd., Evansville, IN 47725.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <oldnationalbank.net> and <oldnationalbank.info>, registered with Dotster.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 16, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 21, 2005.

 

On September 21, 2005, Dotster confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <oldnationalbank.net> and <oldnationalbank.info> domain names are registered with Dotster and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  Dotster has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dotster registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On September 26, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 17, 2005 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@oldnationalbank.net and postmaster@oldnationalbank.info by e-mail.

 

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

 

On October 20, 2005, 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."  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

Complainant makes the following assertions:

This Complaint is based on the following grounds:

(a)                Old National owns the trademarks and trade names OLD NATIONAL BANK and OLD NATIONAL.  Old National commenced use of the OLD NATIONAL BANK mark and name at least as early as 1884 in connection with banking services and commenced use of the OLD NATIONAL mark and name at least as early as 1999.  Since that time, Old National has maintained substantial and continuous use of the OLD NATIONAL BANK and OLD NATIONAL marks and names in commerce in the United States (collectively “the OLD NATIONAL Marks”).  Over the years, Old National has expanded its use of the OLD NATIONAL Marks and presently offers numerous products and services in a variety of fields under the OLD NATIONAL Marks.  These products and services have included, for example, credit cards, debit cards, financial and investment consultation, financial planning, investment brokerage, computerized banking, money management, automated teller services, and small business services.  Old National markets its products and services under the OLD NATIONAL Marks and names through its website at www.oldnational.com.  Old National registered the domain name oldnational.com on June 7, 1996.  Old National’s website has been in operation since at least as early as July 1997.

(b)               Old National has sold billions of dollars of its products and services under the OLD NATIONAL Marks throughout the United States.   

(c)                The OLD NATIONAL Marks are distinctive and well-known marks.

(d)               Old National owns four United States federal registrations for marks containing the component OLD NATIONAL. 

(e)                The domain names oldnationalbank.net and oldnationalbank.info are confusingly similar to the OLD NATIONAL Marks.  See Policy ¶4.a.(i).  ICANN panels have found that, when a domain name incorporates a distinctive mark in its entirety, that creates sufficient similarity between the mark and the domain name to render it confusingly similar. See InfoSpace, Inc. v. Modern Limited-Cayman Web Development, FA0312000215371 (NAF January 19, 2004) (finding that the domain name dogpile.org is confusingly similar to the mark DOG PILE); see also Museum of Science v. Asia Ventures, Inc., D20003-0691 (WIPO October 20, 2003) (finding that the domain name museumofscienceboston.com is confusingly similar to the mark BOSTON MUSEUM OF SCIENCE).

(f)                 Respondent registered the domain names oldnationalbank.net and oldnationalbank.info on September 19, 2004 and December 26, 2005 respectively.

(g)                Respondent’s commercial use of the domain names oldnationalbank.net and oldnationalbank.info constitutes infringement of Old National’s trademark rights under United States law.

(h)                Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain names oldnationalbank.net and oldnationalbank.info.  See Policy ¶4.a.(ii).

(1)               Respondent is not commonly known by the name OLD NATIONAL, nor does Respondent operate a business or other organization under the OLD NATIONAL mark or name.  See Policy ¶4.c.(ii).  Respondent is an individual by the name of Kirk Mann.

(2)               Respondent is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain names without intent for commercial gain, and is instead using the domain names to misleadingly divert consumers, or to tarnish Old National’s marks.  See Policy ¶4.c.(iii).  First, Respondent used the OLD NATIONAL Marks without consent from Old National.  Respondent was put on constructive notice of Old National’s rights in the OLD NATIONAL Marks through Old National’s federal registrations.  Therefore, Respondent knowingly used the OLD NATIONAL Marks in violation of  Old National’s rights in the marks.  Moreover, the content on Respondent’s websites at oldnationalbank.net and oldnationalbank.info reveals that Registrant has actual knowledge of Old National and is purposefully trading on the OLD NATIONAL Marks.  An electronic and partial hard copy of Respondent’s website at oldnationalbank.info, as captured on CD ROM on September 1, 2005, is provided.  An electronic and partial hard copy of Respondent’s website at oldnationalbank.net, as captured on CD ROM on August 27, 2005, is provided.

 

            Second, Respondent operates the websites at oldnationalbank.net and oldnationalbank.info for commercial gain.  The websites located at oldnationalbank.net and oldnationalbank.info are directory websites providing listings of hyperlinks which lead to “popular categories” for banking and loan services, including sites of Old National’s competitors.  When a searcher reaches the oldnationalbank.net and oldnationalbank.info sites, and clicks on one of the links, he or she is provided with another list of links to Old National’s competitors.  Upon information and belief, Respondent receives compensation each time a searcher clicks on one of these search links.

 

            Third, Respondent’s domain names also divert Old National customers and potential customers to Respondent’s websites and then to Old National’s competitors.[1]  ICANN panels have found that domain names which lead consumers who are searching for a particular business, “to a site where the same or similar services provided by others are listed,” is not a legitimate use. Focus Do It All Group v. Athanasios Sermbizis, D2000-0923 (WIPO October 6, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s domain names which linked visitors to a directory of regional competitors was not a legitimate use).

 

            Fourth, Respondent’s use of the domain names are commercial because the various companies linked to the oldnationalbank.net and oldnationalbank.info directory sites benefit from the subsequent interest and purchases of those searches.  ICANN panels have held that there only needs to be commercial gain sought by some party for the use to be commercial.  See id. (finding that “[I]t is enough that commercial gain is being sought for someone” for a use to be commercial). 

 

            Fifth, Respondent’s use cannot be characterized as fair use. See id.  (finding that Respondent’s use “could in no way be characterized as fair, because consumers would think that they were visiting a site of the Complainants until they found that instead they were in a directory which would do the Complainants potential harm”).  Searchers for Old National products and services who used the domain names oldnationalbank.net and oldnationalbank.info would think they were visiting a Old National site until they discovered that they were in a directory of links to competitors.  Such use cannot be considered fair.

 

            Lastly, Respondent’s use has diluted the OLD NATIONAL Marks.  Respondent has diminished consumers’ capacity to associate the OLD NATIONAL Marks with the quality products and services offered by Old National by using the Marks in association with a directory site which provides links to numerous products and services not associated with or related to Old National’s quality products and services.  Respondent’s use creates the very real risk that Old National’s OLD NATIONAL Marks are not only being associated with numerous products and services not related to Old National’s products and services, but also to products and services linked to a directory site over which Old National has no quality control. 

(i)                  Respondent registered and is using the domain names oldnationalbank.net and oldnationalbank.info in bad faith.  See Policy ¶4.b.(iii).  The ICANN policy clearly explains that bad faith can be found where a Respondent, by using a domain name, intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet searchers to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location.  See Policy ¶4.b.(iv).

(1)               Respondent is intentionally using the OLD NATIONAL Marks in his domain names to attract Internet searchers for commercial gain.  See Focus Do It All Group v. Athanasios Sermbizis, D2000-0923 (WIPO August 10, 2000) (finding that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet searchers for commercial gain); Yahoo! Inc. v. Data Art Corp., D2000-0587 (WIPO August 10, 2000) (finding that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet searchers for commercial gain). 

            In Athanasios, the respondent  registered the domain name focus-do-it-all.com which the ICANN Panel found to be identical to the complainant’s mark FOCUS DO IT ALL.  Id.  The respondent’s website offered travel information to tourists through an on-line trade directory and provided a link to a website to help people find homes in London.  Id.  The respondent listed the phrase “contact George for prices” on the bottom of the website to offer the services of one George Ismiris (who was not the respondent).  Id.  The panel found that such listing of services constituted commercial gain, reasoning that although the respondent may not have personally gained in a commercial sense, it was enough that commercial gain was sought for someone else (i.e., George Ismiris).  Id.

            In Yahoo!, the respondent offered goods and services on a website under several different domain names which were considered mis-spellings of the complainant’s YAHOO mark and were found to be identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark.  See Yahoo!, D-2000-0587.  The panel found that the respondent’s site was used for commercial gain because searchers were either attracted to the respondent’s site where goods and services were offered or the respondent received compensation from the owners of websites for delivering searchers to those sites.  Id.  The panel in Yahoo! explained that, although searchers who arrived at the respondent’s site may have concluded immediately that they were at the wrong site, the respondent had realized commercial gain because the respondent had succeeded in attracting the searchers to its site.  Id. 

            Upon information and belief, Respondent is receiving compensation from the various website owners who are linked through the oldnationalbank.net and oldnationalbank.info websites.  Most likely, Respondent receives compensation based upon the number of hits the website owners get from being linked to the directory sites.  This alone would constitute commercial gain because Respondent would be receiving compensation.  Moreover, similar to the facts in Athanasios, Respondent’s use of the domain name and website results in a commercial gain for others by placing links to competitors of Old National and other individuals, groups or entities on its website.2  Just as commercial gain was sought for George Ismiris in Athanasios, commercial gain was sought by Respondent for the various website owners who were linked to the oldnationalbank.net and oldnationalbank.info web pages.  Like the respondent in Yahoo!, who realized commercial gain even though searchers may have immediately realized they were at the wrong site, Respondent realizes commercial gain as soon as the searchers reach the oldnationalbank.net and oldnationalbank.info sites regardless of whether the searchers determine immediately that they are at the wrong site.  Therefore, Respondent’s use of the domain name results in a commercial gain.

(2)               Searchers will likely be confused into believing that there is a connection of source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement between Old National and Respondent by Respondent’s use of the domain names oldnationalbank.net and oldnationalbank.info.  See Athanasios, D2000-0923 (finding that the respondent created a likelihood of confusion through the use of its domain name); Yahoo!, D-2000-0587 (finding that the respondent created a likelihood of confusion through the use of its domain name). 

            In Athanasios, the Respondent not only used the domain name focus-do-it-all.com which was found to be identical to the complainant’s FOCUS DO IT ALL mark, the respondent went one step further and used the complainant’s mark in the title of the respondent’s web page (i.e. “FOCUS on History DO IT ALL in one Day”).  Id.   The panel found that the domain name would initially attract searchers to the site by making them think that they were being linked to a site which belonged to the complainant.  Id.  The panel explained, “it is beyond question that they [searchers] may be initially attracted to Respondent’s site by thinking that it belongs to the Complainants.”  Id.  The panel reasoned further that even if the searchers discovered that they were not at the complainant’s site, the searchers would view the title of the respondent’s web page and believe that, although the complainants were not involved in the types of services linked to the website, the complainants were endorsing, sponsoring or affiliating themselves with the ventures listed on the website.  Id.   

                        Similarly to the respondent in Athanasios, Respondent initially attracts searchers to his websites by using the OLD NATIONAL Marks, thereby making the searchers think that they are being linked to Old National’s site.  As reasoned in Athanasios, even if searchers discover they are not at Old National’s site, searchers may be led to believe that Old National endorsed, sponsored or affiliated themselves with the services offered at the oldnationalbank.net and oldnationalbank.info websites.  Similar to the facts in Athanasios, Respondent uses the OLD NATIONAL Marks in its site’s domain name as well as in the title of its website.  It only makes sense that if searchers see the OLD NATIONAL Marks listed in the domain name and title of the oldnationalbank.net and oldnationalbank.info web pages and numerous links to other products and services are also listed on that page, searchers will be led to believe that even if the services are not those of Old National, the services are at least affiliated with, endorsed or sponsored by Old National. 

 

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a timely Response in this proceeding.  Nevertheless, the Panel considered Respondent’s submission dated October 21, 2005 because it is always best to review a case on the merits. 

 

Respondent essentially said Complainant failed to register the domain names and should not be heard to complain because he did what they failed to do (essentially the problem was created by Complainant’s lack of diligence).  If Complainant wants the domain names, they should have to purchase them from Respondent.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Old National Bancorp, holds a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the OLD NATIONAL BANK mark (Reg. No. 1,954,327 issued February 6, 1996) in connection with banking and loan services. 

 

Respondent, Kirk Mann, registered the <oldnationalbank.net> domain name on September 19, 2004 and the <oldnationalbank.info> domain name on December 26, 2004.  Respondent is using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to its commercial website featuring links to banking and loan services that compete with Complainant’s business.

 

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 proved its rights in the OLD NATIONAL BANK mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.  See Am. Online, Inc. v. Thomas P. Culver Enters., D2001-0564 (WIPO June 18, 2001) (finding that successful trademark registration with the USPTO creates a presumption of rights in a mark); see also Innomed Tech., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”).

 

Respondent’s <oldnationalbank.net> and <oldnationalbank.info> domain names are identical to Complainant’s OLD NATIONAL BANK mark because Respondent’s domain names incorporate Complainant’s mark in its entirety, omit the spaces between the terms in the mark and add the generic top-level domains “.net” and “.info.”  The Panel finds that such minor alterations to Complainant’s registered mark do not negate the identical aspects of Respondent’s domain names pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i).  See Hannover Ruckversicherungs-AG v. Ryu, FA 102724 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2001) (finding <hannoverre.com> to be identical to HANNOVER RE, “as spaces are impermissible in domain names and a generic top-level domain such as ‘.com’ or ‘.net’ is required in domain names”); see also 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.”); see also Daedong-USA, Inc.  v. O’Bryan Implement Sales, FA 210302 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 29, 2003) (“Respondent's domain name, <kioti.com>, is identical to Complainant's KIOTI mark because adding a top-level domain name is irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i).”). 

 

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

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <oldnationalbank.net> and <oldnationalbank.info> 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). 

 

Respondent’s response to the complaint does not add anything.  Respondent asserts the “spilled milk defense” – Complainant could have registered the domain names in the past but didn’t.  Respondent thinks Complainant should have to purchase the domain names from him.  This type of situation is exactly the reason the UDRP was established.  It is not the fault of the domain name registrar for having sold these domain names to Respondent (although it is an interesting argument).

 

The fact the domain name company provided the “parking” page and Respondent says he gets no income from the links to businesses that compete with Complainant does not help Respondent much.  The fact Respondent does not make any money from his web site does not create a bona fide offering of goods and services.

 

Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.  See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted that respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).

 

Respondent is using the <oldnationalbank.net> and <oldnationalbank.info> domain names to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s commercial website that features banking and loan services that compete with Complainant’s business.  Respondent’s use of domain names that are identical to Complainant’s OLD NATIONAL BANK mark to redirect Internet users interested in Complainant’s products to a website that offers similar goods and services in competition with Complainant’s business is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i), nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii).  See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (“Respondent’s appropriation of [Complainant’s] SAFLOK mark to market products that compete with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services.”); see also DLJ Long Term Inv. Corp. v. BargainDomainNames.com, FA 104580 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2002) (“Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services because Respondent is using the domain name to divert Internet users to <visual.com>, where services that compete with Complainant are advertised.”); see also Or. State Bar v. A Special Day, Inc., FA 99657 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 4, 2001) (“Respondent's advertising of legal services and sale of law-related books under Complainant's name is not a bona fide offering of goods and services because Respondent is using a mark confusingly similar to the Complainant's to sell competing goods.”).

 

Respondent has offered no evidence and there is no evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the <oldnationalbank.net> or <oldnationalbank.info> domain name. Thus, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the <oldnationalbank.net> and <oldnationalbank.info> domain names pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(ii).  See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name); see also Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that the respondent does not have rights in a domain name when the respondent is not known by the mark); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor was the respondent using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use).

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Respondent is using the <oldnationalbank.net> and <oldnationalbank.info> domain names, which are identical to Complainant’s OLD NATIONAL BANK mark, to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s commercial website that features goods and services that compete with Complainant’s business.  The Panel finds that such use constitutes disruption and is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iii).  See S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding the respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with the complainant’s business); see also Puckett v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent diverted business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy ¶4(b)(iii)).

 

The Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees for diverting Internet users to a competing website.  Because Respondent’s domain names are identical to Complainant’s OLD NATIONAL BANK mark, Internet users accessing Respondent’s domain names may become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting website.  Thus, Respondent’s use of the <oldnationalbank.net> and <oldnationalbank.info> domain names constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv).  See Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if the respondent profits from its diversionary use of the complainant’s mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and the respondent fails to contest the complaint, it may be concluded that the respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv)); see also Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent directed Internet users seeking the complainant’s site to its own website for commercial gain).

 

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 <oldnationalbank.net> and <oldnationalbank.info> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist

Dated: November 2, 2005

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum