Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. v. Jerry Guess
Claim Number: FA2207002002904
Complainant is Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Gary J. Nelson of Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Jerry Guess (“Respondent”), represented by Michael A. Marrero of Ulmer & Berne LLP, Ohio, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <guessandcocorp.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Fernando Triana, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 1, 2022; the Forum received payment on July 1, 2022.
On July 5, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the disputed domain name <guessandcocorp.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 July 6, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 1, 2022 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@guessandcocorp.com. Also on July 6, 2022, 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 August 1, 2022.
On August 4, 2022 Complainant filed an Additional Submission.
On August 9, 2022, Respondent filed an Additional Submission.
On August 9, 2022, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Fernando Triana, Esq., as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS
Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that “[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” The Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.”
While it appears that a single Complainant filed this proceeding, there are two Complainants in this matter: Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. Complainant argues that they have a sufficient nexus to both claim rights in the Trademark GUESS because Guess? IP Holder L.P. is effectively owned by Guess?, Inc.
The Panel will accept Complainant’s assertion and will treat both Complainants as a single entity.
A. Complainant
a. Complainant, Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc., provide men’s and women’s apparel and related products.
b. Complainant has rights in the trademark GUESS based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., 1,433,022, registered Mar. 17, 1987).
c. The disputed domain name <guessandcocorp.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark because Respondent has incorporated the entire trademark and added the generic word “and,” “co,” and “corp,” as well as the “.com” generic top level domain (“gTLD”).
d. Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name <guessandcocorp.com> because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark.
e. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the disputed domain resolves to a parked webpage.
f. Respondent has registered and uses the disputed domain name <guessandcocorp.com> in bad faith because Respondent uses the disputed domain name to create initial interest confusion and bad faith attraction for commercial gain.
g. In addition, Respondent had constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights prior to registering the disputed domain name and used a privacy service to shield its identity.
h. Lastly, Respondent’s registration of the domain amounts to opportunistic bad faith given the fame of the trademark GUESS.
B. Respondent
a. Respondent, Jerry Guess, operates a company registered before the Department of the Secretary of State of North Carolina on January 5, 2015, called: GUESS & CO. CORPORATION.
b. Respondent’s business provides services in the energy and health care industries, amongst others.
c. The disputed domain name <guessandcocorp.com> is not confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark because it is a common/generic term and the trademark is Respondent’s family name.
d. Respondent has legitimate interests in the disputed domain name <guessandcocorp.com> because Respondent uses the domain name to conduct its legitimate business.
e. Additionally, Respondent argues that the mark is a generic/common term for which Complainants do not have a monopoly.
f. Respondent has not registered and does not use the disputed domain name <guessandcocorp.com> in bad faith because Respondent does not have control over the parked links at its webpage.
g. In addition, although Complainants argue that Respondent had constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights prior to registering the disputed domain name, constructive knowledge is insufficient to establish bad faith.
C. Additional Submissions
a. Complainant’s Additional Submissions
i. Respondent’s confusingly similar Domain Name resolves to a parked holding page, which advertises apparel and accessories competitive with Complainants.
ii. The subject domain appears to be registered for use in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme perpetuated by Mr. Guess over the course of many years, with nearly identical “business plans” that repeatedly have been proven false, and which have resulted in criminal allegations and convictions against Respondent.
iii. Respondent has been part of other administrative proceedings in which the Panel found that Respondent had registered and was using the subject domain names in bad faith, had no rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names, and noted that there was evidence that Respondent was engaged in a fraudulent pattern of creating false business entities using the Guess trademark. See Guess? IP Holder L.P. v. Joe Bandy, FA 1773878 (Apr. 9, 2018).
iv. Respondent does not show actual evidence of Respondent’s use of, or “demonstrable preparations to use”.
v. The “Company Brochure” provided as Exhibit D to the Response provides no information relating to actual services provided by Respondent, who apparently has been in business for over 7 years.
vi. Respondent has been engaged in criminal activity for well over a decade in connection with his use of businesses related to the name Guess and Co.
vii. Respondent has a storied history of using “Guess” in connection with fraudulent and criminal schemes. The evidence of record supports that the subject domain was registered and is used in bad faith.
b. Respondent’s Additional Submissions
i. The Panel should disregard Complainant’s Additional Statement, as it does not address new legal principles.
ii. Respondent needs only to demonstrate preparedness to offer services with the disputed domain name.
iii. Complainant has not met the burden to prove that Responding is acting in bad faith by choosing a domain name that incorporates Respondent’s last name.
1. A sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. exists.
2. Complainant began its business in 1981 and has since developed into a global lifestyle brand. Complainant now designs, markets, and distributes its full collection of women’s and men’s apparel throughout the United States, Canada, and the rest of the world.
3. Complainant has established rights in the GUESS mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 1,433,022, registered Mar. 17, 1987).
4. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 15, 2022.
5. Complainant and Respondent were part of the administrative proceeding Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. v. Joel Bandy / Guess & Co. Corporation / Corporate Affairs / The Guess Bread Company, Ltd. / The Guess Construction Company, Ltd. / The Guess Private Merchant Company, Ltd. Claim Number: FA1802001773878. Which was decided in favor of Complainant and referred to the following domain names: the following dates: <guessandco.info>, <guessandco.org>, <guessandcoshareholder.info>, <theguessbreadcompany.com>, <theguessconstructioncompany.com>, and <theguessprivatemerchantcompany.com>.
6. No evidence exists to show that Respondent has ever been legitimately known by the trademark GUESS.
7. The disputed domain names resolve in a website displaying pay-per-click content.
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 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.
Complainant contends to be the owner of the trademark GUESS through its registration of the trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) (Reg. No. 1,433,022, registered Mar. 17, 1987), among others.
i) Existence of a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights
Firstly, it is important to point out that paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the existence of trademark rights. As a matter of general principle, industrial property rights are typically acquired by registration before a competent office.
The generally accepted definition of a trademark involves the concept of a distinctive force as the most relevant element. It is this “distinctiveness” that gives the sign the capability to identify the products or services of its owner and differentiate them from the product and services of other participants in the market.
When a sign is registered as a trademark, it is surrounded by a presumption of sufficient distinctive force and the owner is granted with an exclusive right over the trademark, which entitles him or her to prevent any third party from using the registered sign or any other sign confusingly similar to it.
However, the UDRP does not discriminate between registered and unregistered trademarks[i] and thus, it is well established that a complainant is not required to own a registered trademark to invoke the Policy. It is sufficient in certain common law jurisdictions, such as the United States of America, that complainant has rights over an unregistered trademark as to deserve legal protection, based solely on its use in commerce.
In this case, Complainant has proven its rights in the trademark GUESS through its registration of the trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) (Reg. 1,433,022, registered Mar. 17, 1987), among others.
This information appears to be incontestable and conclusive evidence of Complainant’s ownership of the cited trademark and the exclusive right to use it in connection with services of international class 25. The registration of a trademark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the trademark is inherently distinctive.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that Complainant has demonstrated rights in the trademark GUESS for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
ii) Identity or confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s trademark
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s trademark GUESS.
In the first place, before establishing whether or not the disputed domain name <guessandcocorp.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark GUESS, the Panel wants to point out that the addition of generic top-level domains (gTLDs), e.g., “.com,” “.net,” “.edu,” or “.org”, may be disregarded when determining if the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the registered trademark[ii].
UDRP Panels have unanimously accepted that the inclusion of the “.com” gTLD in a disputed domain name may be disregarded in analyzing whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which Complainant asserts rights. In the Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walsucks and Walmart Puerto Rico, D2000-0477 (WIPO July 25, 2000), the panel stated:
“The addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name ‘.com’ is without legal significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants, ‘.com’ is one of only several such gTLDs, and ‘.com’ does not serve to identify a specific enterprise as a source of goods or services”.
The Panel considers that the reproduction of the trademark GUESS, by the disputed domain name <guessandcocorp.com>, is sufficient ground to establish that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark[iii]. Moreover, as it is the first element, and it creates an impression of sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement.
In this case, the disputed domain name reproduces the entire trademark GUESS, with the addition of some generic terms as “and”, “co” and “corp”.
Besides, the disputed domain name does not include any other distinctive elements, merely generic ones. Consequently, consumers will assume that the owner of the disputed domain names belong to Complainant. Thus, by registering the disputed domain names, Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the domain name.
Respondent’s argument that the there are other trademarks including the word GUESS does not diminish Complainant’s trademark distinctiveness or changes the confusion similarity of the disputed domain name and the trademark; as from the consumer stand point the other registrations are irrelevant when considering a relation between Complainant and the disputed domain name.
In consequence, as per this reasoning, the Panel finds that, in the present case, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark GUESS and thus, the requirement set forth in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is duly complied with.
a) Prima Facie Case.
Regarding this second element of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, UDRP Panels have unanimously consented that requiring the Complainant to prove the lack of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name is often an impossible task: it is not only a negative but also demands access to information that is mostly within the knowledge of the Respondent[iv].
In Julian Barnes v. Old Barn Studios Ltd., D2001-0121 (WIPO Mar. 30, 2001), the Panel stated that:
“Is the Respondent required to adduce any such evidence, if the onus is on the Complainant to prove the three elements of paragraph 4 of the Policy? While the overall burden of proof is on the Complainant, this element involves the Complainant proving matters, which are peculiarly within the knowledge of the Respondent. It involves the Complainant in the often impossible task of proving a negative. In the Panel’s view the correct approach is as follows: the Complainant makes the allegation and puts forward what he can in support (e.g. he has rights to the name, the Respondent has no rights to the name of which he is aware, he has not given any permission to the Respondent). Unless the allegation is manifestly misconceived, the Respondent has a case to answer and that is where paragraph 4(c) of the Policy comes in. If the Respondent then fails to demonstrate his rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, the complaint succeeds under this head”.
Therefore, a Complainant is required to make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once this prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to Respondent, who must come forward with concrete evidence of its rights or legitimate interests[v]. If Respondent fails to do so, Complainant is deemed to have met the second element of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name <guessandcocorp.com> because of the following: i) Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use Complainant’s trademarks for any purpose, neither has license them in any way to Respondent; ii) Respondent is not associated with, affiliated with or sponsored by Complainant; iii) Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name; and iv) The disputed domain name creates confusion among consumers looking for Complainant.
The Panel accepts these assertions as a prima facie case made by Complainant that shifts the burden of production to Respondent.
b) Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Name.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy includes a nonexclusive listing of circumstances that prove a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name:
(i) Before any notice of the dispute, Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Respondent states the disputed domain name is going to be used for the development of the services in the fields of energy, industries, health care and real state. However, there is no evidence of the use or preparation of use on this regard. The simple brochure, which by the way, includes a different domain name as part of the display is not evidence of the use or preparation of use.
Moreover, the mere last name, is not enough to conclude that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name or that Respondent has acquired trademark rights. The coincidence of the last name with the registered and famous trademark is not a letter of marque to register a domain name and obtain a commercial gain from the confusion it generates.
Finally, the disputed domain name is not being used, hence Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name.
Given the above, the Panel considers the following:
1. Respondent failed to prove that before receiving the written notice of the Complaint he was using or preparing a website to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
2. The use of the disputed domain name proved by Complainant, cannot be qualified as bona fide offering of goods or services as it is inactive or displaying pay-per-clicks.
3. Respondent did not provide any evidence supporting the absence of a trademark violation, as Complainant’s trademarks remain within the disputed domain name, which create the risk of confusion.
4. Respondent use of Complainant’s trademark as part of the disputed domain name also misleads visitors into thinking that Complainant is somehow connected to Respondent.
5. Moreover, there is no evidence to support that Respondent is and/or has been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
6. Simply stating that the disputed domain names are going to be used for a business is not evidence of Respondent’s rights or legitimate interest in them. Since its registration, Respondent has had enough time to prepare and use the website of the disputed domain name; notwithstanding, it has not use it or prove that it has been preparing it to be used.
7. Finally, Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue, since the use of Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name misleads visitors into thinking that Complainant is somehow connected to Respondent.
This Panel believes that Respondent failed to prove his rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Furthermore, Respondent never explained the reason for registering again a domain name including Complainant’s trademarks, after the decision Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. v. Joel Bandy / Guess & Co. Corporation / Corporate Affairs / The Guess Bread Company, Ltd. / The Guess Construction Company, Ltd. / The Guess Private Merchant Company, Ltd. Claim Number: FA1802001773878. Dated: April 9, 2018.
Consequently, Respondent knew of Complainant’s trademark GUESS given the history between the parties. Yet Respondent incorporated said trademarks in the disputed domain name. Thus, Respondent used the trademark GUESS to create a likelihood of confusion aimed to divert consumers to Respondent’s offered products and services.
Therefore, the requirement set forth in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is duly complied with as Respondent lacks any right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
According to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith:
(i) Circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) Respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) By using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his/her website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his/her website or location or of a product or service on his/her website or location.
Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, since Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his/her website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement.
Respondent knew of the trademark GUESS[vi], since at least the proceeding: Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. v. Joel Bandy / Guess & Co. Corporation / Corporate Affairs / The Guess Bread Company, Ltd. / The Guess Construction Company, Ltd. / The Guess Private Merchant Company, Ltd. Claim Number: FA1802001773878. Dated: April 9, 2018.
It is highly important to note that, the disputed domain name was registered despite of the administrative precedent in which the Panel stated:
“A complainant may use prior bad faith actions against a respondent to evince bad faith under Policy¶ 4(b)(ii). See Fandango, LLC v. 21562719 Ont Ltd, FA1209001464081 (Forum November 2, 2012) (“Respondent’s past conduct and UDRP history establishes a pattern of registered domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”). Complainant provides an article outlining the fraudulent behavior of the alleged registrant of the domain names, Jerry Guess. See Compl. Ex. B. The articles detail how Jerry Guess was investigated, charged, and convicted of various criminal activity in connection with a former business, and how Jerry Guess wanted to begin new business under a different name involving the GUESS mark. Id. As such, the Panel agrees that Respondent has previously engaged in bad faith behavior, and holds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith”.
The same evidence was introduced in this proceeding and even though, Respondent had over 4 years to refute said article, Respondent did not, and never filed any evidence in this proceeding to convince this Panel that the purpose of this new domain name was in any way different from the previous ones. The only reference to said article from Respondent, is the following:
“Dredging up Mr. Guess’s past does not prove bad faith with respect to the domain name at issue in this proceeding”.
Thus, there is no evidence whatsoever, for the Panel to conclude that the purpose of the registration of the disputed domain name is different from the registrations in the past. Especially, when is Respondent who files evidence of the same proposed use as the one pointed out in the article (even if it is not enough to demonstrate use or preparation to use), which includes the reference to a different domain name including the trademark GUESS. In fact, Respondent has provided no evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain name.
This Panel considers that the mere fact of knowingly incorporating a third-party’s trademark in a domain name constitutes registration in bad faith[vii]. See Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Direct Navigation Data Inc., WIPO Case No. D2012-1448, where the panel found: “The selection of this word is certainly not a random decision; the Panel finds that it is a consequence of Respondent’s prior knowledge of the mark. This fact, by itself, is registration in bad faith in the Panel’s opinion”.
By trying once again to register a domain name including the trademark GUESS despite of the previous administrative decisions, the Panel considers that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name for the purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business and that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct.
In addition, the Panel considers that Respondent must have known that the word “GUESS” within the disputed domain name would attract Internet users seeking Complainant’s trademark, to the website from which expected to earn money. Thus, Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark, which is indicative of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b).
Therefore, the three elements of the Policy ¶ 4 are satisfied in the present case in respect to Respondent of the disputed domain name.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the disputed domain name <guessandcocorp.com> be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Fernando Triana, Esq., Panelist
Dated: August 23, 2022
[i] See MatchNet plc. v. MAC Trading, D2000-0205 (WIPO May 11, 2000); see also The British Broadcasting Corporation v. Jamie Renteria, D2000-0050 (WIPO Mar. 27, 2000).
[ii] See Altec Industries, Inc. v. I 80 Equipment, FA 1437753 (Forum May 18, 2012).
[iii] See ER Marks, Inc. and QVC, Inc. v. Hansmann, FA 1381755 (Forum May 6, 2011); see also Oki Data Ams., Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001).
[iv] See Arla Foods amba v. Bel Arbor / Domain Admin, PrivacyProtect.org, D2012-0875 (WIPO June 7, 2012); see also F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Bargin Register, Inc. - Client Servs., D2012-0474 (WIPO Apr. 24, 2012).
[v] See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 1, 2000).
[vi] See F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Bargin Register, Inc. - Client Services, WIPO Case No. D2012-0474.
[vii] See F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Bargin Register, Inc. - Client Services, supra.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page