WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
AltaVista Company v. O.F.E.Z. et al.
Case No. D2000-1160
1. The Parties
The Complainant in this administrative proceeding is AltaVista Company ("AltaVista"), a Delaware corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, United States of America, having its principal place of business in Palo Alto, California, USA.
According to information provided to the Panel by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center"), the Respondents in this administrative proceeding are as follows: (1) O.F.E.Z., an entity of unknown status located in Encino, California, USA; (2) Fisher Zvieli, an individual located in Encino, California, USA; (3) OZ domains, an entity of unknown status located in Los Angeles, California, USA; (4) E O domains, an entity of unknown status located in Los Angeles, California, USA; (5) A, an entity of unknown status located in Los Angeles, California, USA; (6) A, an entity of unknown status located in Gdynsk, Poland; (7) L, an entity of unknown status located in Gdynsk, Poland; and (8) A, an entity of unknown status located in Los Angeles, California, USA.
2. The Domain Names and Registrars
As of the time this matter was forwarded to the Panel for decision, the domain names involved in this dispute, and the corresponding Registrars with whom they were registered, are as follows:
Domain Name Registrar
Network Solutions, Inc.
Network Solutions, Inc.
Network Solutions, Inc.
Network Solutions, Inc.
Network Solutions, Inc.
Network Solutions, Inc.
Network Solutions, Inc.
Network Solutions, Inc.
T, Inc.
T, Inc.
Network Solutions, Inc.
3. Procedural History
Complainant has submitted these matters for decision in accordance with the Uniform Policy for Domain Name Dispute Resolution, adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") on August 26, 1999 ("ICANN Policy" or "UDRP"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999 ("the UDRP Rules") and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("the Supplemental Rules").
Complainant�s original Complaint was filed with the Center by e-mail on August 31, 2000. Receipt of the original Complaint was acknowledged by the Center on September 1, 2000. An original and four copies of the original Complaint were filed with the Center on September 4, 2000.
Complainant�s Amendment to its original Complaint was filed with the Center by e-mail on September 5, 2000. An original and four copies of the Amendment to Complainant�s original Complaint were filed with the Center on September 8, 2000.
Complainant�s Second Amendment to its original Complaint was filed with the Center by e-mail on October 13, 2000. An original and four copies of the Second Amendment to Complainant�s original Complaint were filed with the Center on October 16, 2000.
Complainant�s Revised Complaint was filed with the Center by e-mail on
October 27, 2000. An original and four copies of the Revised Complaint were filed with the Center on October 30, 2000.
Complainant�s Amendment to its Revised Complaint was filed with the Center by e-mail on November 2, 2000. An original and four copies of the Amendment to Complainant�s Revised Complaint were filed with the Center on November 6, 2000.
It appears that Complainant�s submission of Amendments to its original Complaint, Revised Complaint, and Amendment to its Revised Complaint were necessitated, at least in part, because the domain name Registrar, Network Solutions, Inc., did not lock the files for certain of the domain names at issue so as to prevent their transfer. If true, this is unfortunate � and it is hoped that such administrative errors do not often recur; or the integrity of the UDRP system could be called into question.
According to the Center, it appears that Complainant�s various Complaints and Amendments were filed in accordance with the requirements of the UDRP Rules and the Center�s Supplemental Rules. Payment for this administrative proceeding appears to have been properly made.
Complainant�s various Complaints were served in compliance with the formal requirements, and Respondents were properly notified in accordance with UDRP Rules, paragraph 2(a). Service of hard copies of Complainant�s papers by the Center upon Respondents O.F.E.Z., Fisher Zvieli, A, and L were returned for improper addresses. However, e-mail service of Complainant�s papers by the Center (in digital form) appear to have reached their destinations as to all Respondents, and were not "bounced back" to the Center.
According to the Center, none of the Respondents in this administrative proceeding filed any responses to the original Complaint, its Amendments, or the Revised Complaint and its Amendment.
The Administrative Panel appears to have been properly constituted. After having conducted a standard check for potential conflicts of interest, and no such conflicts having been reported, the sole panelist for this proceeding submitted a Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence.
The Case File for these matters was forwarded to the Panel on February 8, 2001. Since these matters were forwarded to the Panel for decision, there have not been any further submissions. The date scheduled for the issuance of the Panel�s decision was and is February 22, 2001. There have been no further extensions granted, interim orders issued, or other proceedings. The disposition of the eleven domain names at issue herein shall be ruled upon in this single, consolidated decision, based upon Complainant�s Revised Complaint and Complainant�s Amendment to its Revised Complaint. The language of this proceeding shall be English.
4. Factual Background
AltaVista is a Delaware corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, United States of America, which has its principal place of business in Palo Alto, California. AltaVista is a majority-owned operating company of CMGI, Inc. based in Andover, Massachusetts. AltaVista is a provider of Internet search, information, e-commerce, and portal services. AltaVista claims to have one of the World Wide Web�s largest search indexes and directories, and asserts that it performs more than 40 million search queries each day and nearly five billion per quarter.
The Respondents in this proceeding are O.F.E.Z, Fisher Zvieli, OZ domains, EO domains, A, L, A and A (collectively, "Respondents"). Respondents O.F.E.Z and Fisher Zvieli have identical registration addresses, e-mail addresses, and contact addresses. Respondents OZ domains and EO domains have identical contact addresses and telephone numbers. Respondents OZ domains and A have identical registration and contact addresses and phone numbers, and have only slightly different contact names (WWWHOSTMASTER versus WWHOSTMASTER) and e-mail addresses (amega@ versus bmega@). A and A have identical registration information. A and L have identical registration information, and are the successors to the domain names formerly registered to O.F.E.Z. and OZ domains, respectively. All eight Respondents have identical domain servers, and all contested domain names registered by the eight Respondents forward Internet users to the same website. As such, unless otherwise specified, Respondents shall be treated as one entity for purposes of this Administrative Proceeding. See Yahoo!, Inc. v. Eitan Zviely et al., Case No. D2000-0273 (WIPO June 14, 2000).
The registration agreements, pursuant to which the domain names that are the subject of this proceeding were registered, incorporate the ICANN Policy. Both NSI�s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("NSI Policy") and T�s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("T Policy") provide that their provisions are those that have been adopted by ICANN, are incorporated by reference into the Respondents� registration agreements, and set forth the terms and conditions in connection with a dispute between the registrant and a third party over the registration and use of an Internet domain name.
The domain names herein at issue appear to be eleven slight misspellings or typographical errors of the Complainant�s trademark ALTAVISTA. Based upon a review of the evidence submitted by Complainant, if Internet users type any of the contested domain names into their browsers, at one time they were automatically forwarded to Respondents� or their affiliates� website located at the URL , which provides Internet search services, including a link to Complainant�s Internet search engine. Based upon the Panel�s independent investigation while this matter was pending for decision, if Internet users type any of the contested domain names into their web browsers, they are automatically forwarded to Respondents� or their affiliates� website located at the URL http:\\. It too provides Internet search services, including a link to . The registration information for includes the same technical contact address and identical domain servers as several of the Respondents to this proceeding.
Complainant asserts that it has used the mark ALTAVISTA since 1995 to identify its web site, and its Internet content and services to Internet users, as well as its commerce and media partners. Complainant claims to own registrations for or to have applied for registration of the trademark ALTAVISTA in many countries around the world. The registrations for these trademarks in the United States (copies of which were provided to the Panel) are as follows:
Mark
International Class (goods/services):
Registration Number:
Registration Date:
ALTAVISTA
42 (computer services)
2,047,808
March 25, 1997
ALTA VISTA
42 (computer services)
2,052,345
April 15, 1997
ALTAVISTA
9 (computer software)
2,112,885
November 11, 1997
ALTAVISTA
9 (computer software), 16 (printed matter), and 41 (educational services)
2,181,100
August 11, 1998
The registration for the ALTAVISTA mark in Poland (a copy of which also was provided to the Panel) is as follows:
Mark
International Class (goods/services):
Registration Number:
Registration Date:
ALTAVISTA
9, 16, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42 (namely computer software and services)
110084
3/19/99
Complainant also claims ownership of registrations for the mark ALTAVISTA in over 80 other countries. Complainant asserts that its rights in the ALTAVISTA mark predate the registration of the domain names at issue.
Complainant also asserts its ownership of the domain name , and that it has operated a website under this domain name since December, 1995. A copy of the home page located at the URL was provided to the panel.
AltaVista claims that it has invested many millions of dollars over the years to publicize the mark ALTAVISTA, and that it has used this mark widely in a manner designed to ensure its automatic identification in the minds of Internet users with Complainant�s Internet search, information, e-commerce, and portal services.
Respondents registered the contested domain names in March, April, May and October 1998, approximately two and one-half years after Complainant�s adoption and first use of its ALTAVISTA mark.
If Internet users point their web browsers to the URLs associated with any of the eleven contested domain names, at one time they were automatically forwarded to the website located at the URL , which provides links to 37 Internet search engines (including AltaV) and also provided search categories of its own, many of which are identical to Complainant�s. A copy of the home page was provided to the Panel. Internet users are now automatically forwarded to the website located at the URL http:\\ which provides links to search engines, including to , and offers to provide e-mail services through .
According to WhoIs database information received by the Panel, the technical contact information for the domain names and are the same as information for OZ domains, E O domains, A and A.
According to the WhoIs search information available from the Domain Name Registrar, Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI"), several of the Respondents have registered dozens of domain names. Copies of printouts from the NSI WhoIs search query database for domain names held by "O.F.E.Z.," "Fisher Zvieli," and "OZ domains" were provided to the panel. Many of these domain names are misspellings of other trademarks and include , , , and .
On June 28, 2000, Complainant sent a letter to Respondent O.F.E.Z. at the address listed in NSI�s WhoIs database. That letter was sent back to Complainant with the instruction that it was not deliverable due to an incorrect address.
When Complainant filed its various papers with the Center, Complainant copied Respondent via e-mail. Respondents have never corresponded with Complainant.
The Center�s service of Complainant�s papers upon Respondents O.F.E.Z., Fisher Zvieli, A, and L were returned.
5. Parties� Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant asserts that the eleven domain names at issue are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; that Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names; and that the domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
Complainant requests that the contested domain names be transferred to it. Complainant has elected to have the disputes concerning these domain names be decided collectively by a single-member Administrative Panel.
B. Respondent
As indicated, none of the Respondents submitted any responses to Complainant�s Complaint, Amendments, Revised Complaint, or Amendment. The Panel, therefore, shall decide this matter on the basis of Complainant�s submissions, and all inferences that can reasonably be drawn therefrom. UDRP Rules �� 14(a) and (b).
6. Discussion and Findings
This dispute is properly within the scope of the Policy and the Administrative Panel has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP sets forth the type of disputes for which domain name registrants are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding. They are required to submit to such a proceeding in the event that a complainant asserts to an applicable Provider, here, the Center, in compliance with its Rules and Supplemental Rules of Procedure, that:
(i) the respondent�s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and,
(iii) the respondent�s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In this administrative proceeding, Complainant has alleged that each of these three elements are present with respect to the eleven domain names in issue. The question now to be answered by the Panel is whether Complainant has proved each of these three elements as to each of the eleven contested domain names.
For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the UDRP, 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 a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the domain name registrant 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 the registrant�s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the domain name registrant 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 the domain name registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the domain name registrant has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the domain name registrant has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site 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 the registrant�s web site or location or of a product or service on the registrant�s web site or location.
UDRP, � 4(b).
On the other hand, any of the following circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate the domain name registrant�s rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP:
(i) before any notice to the domain name registrant of the dispute, the registrant�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) the domain name registrant (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the domain name registrant 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 complainant�s trademark or service mark at issue.
UDRP, � 4(c).
Confusing Similarities of the Domain Names to a Mark in Which Complainant has Rights
The Panel finds that the contested domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant�s ALTAVISTA mark in which Complainant has shown that it has rights.
The only differences between Complainant�s AltaVista mark and the eleven domain names at issue are Respondents� substitution, inversion, addition or removal of one or two letters in the Complainant�s mark.
The administrative proceeding entitled Yahoo! Inc. v. Eitan Zviely, et al., Case No. D2000-0273 (WIPO June 14, 2000), concerned the registration of 37 domain names which either were misspellings or slight alterations to the YAHOO! mark, including , , , and by several of the same Respondents as are involved in this proceeding. In Yahoo!, the contested domain names were registered under seven different entities with slightly different names and at several different addresses, four of which are those used by the present Respondents. Id., � 1 at 1. In finding the domain names to be confusingly similar, the panel noted that "[e]specially pertinent here, is the fact that [respondent] has apparently used each of the websites at issue to direct users to [respondent�s] Internet search services." Id., � 5.a. at 8. The panel stated that also pertinent were "the webforwarding arrangements adopted by Zviely" and "the promotion of 37 search engines" at the one site that remained active. Id. The panel concluded that its finding of confusing similarity:
is reinforced by [respondent�s] pattern of conduct in registering 37 Yahoo-like domain names, as well as dozens of other trademark-related domain names. � [Respondent�s] only purpose in registering so many trademark-related domain names must have been to trade on the good will and fame associated with those marks. Specifically, in light of the global fame and good will associated with Yahoo!�s marks and domain names, [respondent] must necessarily have expected to attract visitors to his website. Confusing similarity is what [respondent] has been counting on. Id.
Here, Respondents have registered eleven domain names that are confusingly similar to Complainant�s ALTAVISTA mark and domain name . A misspelling or typographical variation of a well known mark (such as is the ALTAVISTA mark) is deemed to be "confusingly similar" to the Complainant�s mark in violation of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP. See AltaVista Company v. Grandtotal Finances Limited et al., Case No. D2000-0848 (WIPO October 17, 2000), � 6 at 4-5 (finding 43 domain names based on slight alterations of mark ALTAVISTA confusingly similar); AltaVista Company v. Jean-Daniel Gamache, Case No. 95249 (NAF August 18, 2000), at 5-6 and AltaVista Company v. Astav, Case No. 95251 (NAF August 17, 2000), at 5-6 ( and confusingly similar to ALTAVISTA); Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc., Case No. D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000), �� 6.2-5 at 7 (finding domain names , , and confusingly similar to complainant�s mark "REUTERS"); Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. John Zuccarini and The Cupcake Patrol a/k/a Country Walk a/k/a Cupcake Party, Case No. D2000-0330 (WIPO June 7, 2000), � 3 at 2 (finding domain names , , and virtually identical and confusingly similar to complainant�s marks "BRITANNICA" and "BRITANNICA.COM").
The addition of "com" to Complainant�s mark in the domain name also is confusingly similar to the ALTAVISTA mark, as it fully incorporates Complainant�s mark and is a common typing error users make when searching the Internet. See SGS Societe Generale de Surveillance S.A. v. Inspectorate, Case No. D2000-0025 (WIPO March 17, 2000), � 6.1 at 7 (domain name confusingly similar to complainant�s mark "SGS"); Bank of America Corporation v. C, Case No. 95113 (NAF August 14, 2000) at 3 (use of "www" in front of complainant�s mark takes advantage of a typing error users make when searching on the Internet).
The contested domain names are confusingly similar imitations of Complainant�s ALTAVISTA mark which will cause confusion among Internet users. Respondents clearly intended this result. Confusion is all but assured in that the contested domain names automatically forward Internet users who mistype Complainant�s domain name , and who are looking for Complainant�s search engine previously, to Respondents� or their affiliates� search engine website and now to Respondents� or their affiliates� search engine website. AltaVista Company v. Grandtotal Finances Limited et al., Case No. D2000-0848 (WIPO October 17, 2000), � 6 at 5 (because intent of user is to reach complainant�s site, "misspellings of a trademark must necessarily lead to confusion on behalf of the user").
Complainant has met its burden of proof with respect to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP.
Lack of Respondents� Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Contested Domain Names
Respondents have no legitimate rights or interests in respect of the contested domain names. As pointed out by Complainant in its Revised Complaint, none of the Respondents are Complainant�s authorized licensees, nor are they otherwise authorized to use the Complainant�s ALTAVISTA mark.
Because Respondents did not respond to any of Complainant�s Complaints or amendments thereto, there is no proof of record that any of the Respondents use any of the contested domain names as a business name; and there is no evidence that they did so (or made preparations to do so) prior to notice of the parties� dispute. None of the Respondents have come forward to state that they are commonly known by any of the contested domain names. There has been no evidence presented to the Panel that any of the Respondents have trademark or service mark rights in the contested domain names.
Complainant particularly points out that Respondents do not have legitimate rights in the domain names and , merely because they registered the domain names using these same names as the identities of the registrants in their application templates filed with the domain name registrars. The Panel agrees. See AltaVista Company v. Astav, Case No. 95251 (NAF August 17, 2000) (finding no rights in ASTAVISTA.COM where respondent registered under the name "Astav" which was a confusingly similar variation of the complainant�s mark ALTAVISTA); Microsoft Corporation v. M a/k/a Tarek Ahmed, Case No. D2000-0548 (WIPO July 21, 2000) (finding no rights in where respondent registered under the name "M" which was a confusingly similar variation of complainant�s mark MICROSOFT).
Were Respondents to have shown that they had legitimate rights or interests in the contested domain names, such assertions are undermined by their use to direct Internet users to Respondents� or their affiliates� other websites, and/or . Making such use to attract Internet users to other directly competitive sites is not a legitimate use of a domain name. See America Online, Inc. v. Tencent Communications Corp., Case No. 93668 (NAF March 21, 2000), at 3 (use of a web site "as a portal to suck surfers into a site sponsored by Tencent seems hardly legitimate"); Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd v. Steven S. Lalwani, Case No. D2000-0014 (WIPO March 11, 2000) � 6.B. at 4 (finding of no rights and illegitimate interests "fortified by the fact that the Respondent�s sites appear to act as �postal addresses� to other sites").
Further, there is nothing on Respondents� websites that refers to the contested domain names or that would in any way justify or explain incorporating confusingly similar imitations of the ALTAVISTA mark within these domain names. See Nokia Corporation v. N a.k.a. IBCC, Case No. D2000-0102 (WIPO April 18, 2000), � 6.b. at 4 (finding that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in domain name because there was no element on the Respondent�s website that would justify use of the word NOKIA within the domain name).
Complainant has met its burden of proof with respect to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP.
Respondents� Bad Faith Registration and Use
Respondents have registered and have used the contested domain names in bad faith. By registering the contested domain names and using them to forward Internet users to their and/or websites, Respondents seek to profit by confusing Internet users as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondents� or their affiliates� site, to misleadingly divert potential users of the Complainant�s site to the Respondents� or their affiliates� site, and to disrupt Internet traffic intended for Complainant.
The Respondents� registration and use of the eleven confusingly similar variations of the Complainant�s well-known mark are inherently deceptive and clearly done with a bad faith intent to create confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondents� websites and to divert Internet traffic away from Complainant�s website to the Respondents� and/or their affiliates� and/or websites.
Respondents knew, or should have known, of Complainant�s well known mark ALTAVISTA when they registered the contested domain names. It is highly unlikely that anyone providing Internet search services would not be aware of the AltaVista mark. See Barney�s Inc. v. BNY Bulletin Board, Case No. D2000-0059 (WIPO April 2, 2000), � 6 at 3 (charging Respondent with knowledge of Complainant�s rights in its registered mark BARNEY�S NEW YORK); Samsonite Corporation v. Colony Holding, Case No. 94313 (NAF April 17, 2000), at 3 (finding that Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of commonly known mark SAMSONITE).
In Yahoo!, supra, the Administrative Panel found that Respondents had registered 37 domain names in bad faith in light of the following facts: "(1) [respondents�] pattern of conduct registering hundreds of domain names based on trademarks owned by others, (2) the confusing similarity between the 37 domain names in issue and the Yahoo! marks, (3) [respondents�] programming of his websites to direct users away from the Yahoo! search engine, and (4) [respondents�] registrations under phony names�." Yahoo!, � 5.c. at 9.
Similarly, here Respondents have (1) registered dozens of domain names based on trademarks owned by others, including , , , and ; (2) registered the contested domain names which are confusingly similar to Complainant�s ALTAVISTA mark; (3) programmed the websites the resolve to URLs located at the contested domain names to direct users away from the AltaVista search engine and towards their own or their affiliates� search engine websites; and (4) registered the contested domain names under multiple fictitious names (with at least one or more domain name registrations containing invalid contact information). This is a clear indication of bad faith. AltaVista Company v. Grandtotal Finances Limited et al., Case No. D2000-0848 (WIPO October 17, 2000), � 6 at 6 (finding bad faith where domain-forwarding arrangement rendered it "quite obvious that the only intent of the Respondent was to appropriate the goodwill of the Complainant and redirect traffic intended for the Complainant for his own purposes.").
Respondents� pattern of registering domain names which are confusingly similar variations of other marks also indicates its bad faith engagement in the practice of "typosquatting." See Yahoo!, supra, and CeoCities v. Data Art Corp. et al., Case No. D2000-0587 (WIPO August 10, 2000), � 6.9 at 7; AOL v. Asian On-Line This Domain For Sale, Case No. 94636 (NAF May 17, 2000).
Respondents� practice of providing inaccurate and/or fictitious registration and contact information also indicates bad faith. See 3636275 Canada, d/b/a eResolution v. eR, Case No. D2000-0110 (WIPO April 10, 2000), � 6 at 7 (finding bad faith where Respondent was an unidentified business entity and person responding to Complainant�s cease and desist request did not provide street address and gave means of communication and contact that were "unusual and even questionable for someone conducting a legitimate business"); Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Scott A. Smithberger and QUIXTAR-IBO, Case No. D2000-0138 (WIPO April 19, 2000), � 6.C at 3 (registration of false name indicates bad faith).
Complainant has met its burden of proof with respect to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the UDRP.
7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel Orders and Directs that the eleven contested domain names, , , , , , , , , , , and Inc., be transferred to Complainant, AltaVista Company.
Jonathan Hudis
Sole Panelist
Dated: February 28, 2001
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy