WIPO Domain Name Decision D2007-0214 for euro-millions.com, euro-millions.net, euromillions.org

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Societ� aux Loteries en Europe, SLE v. Take That Ltd.

Case No. D2007-0214

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Societ� aux Loteries en Europe - SLE, Brussels, Belgium, represented by Inlex IP Expertise, Paris, France (hereinafter, the “Complainant”).

The Respondent is Take That Ltd., London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Lewis Silkin, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (hereinafter, the “Respondent”).

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names are , , (hereinafter, the “Domain Names”).

The Domain Names are registered with Tucows, Inc. (hereinafter, “Tucows”).

3. Procedural History

The Complainant filed its complaint (hereinafter, the “Complaint”) with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (hereinafter, the “Center”) on February�14,�2007. On February 19, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to Tucows a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On February 19, 2007, Tucows transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative, billing, and technical contact of the Domain Names. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (hereinafter, the “Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (hereinafter, the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (hereinafter, the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on February 28, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for filing its response to the Complaint (hereinafter, the “Response”) was March 20, 2007. The Response was filed with the Center on March 20, 2007.

The Center appointed Mr. Albert Agustinoy Guilayn (hereinafter, the “Panel”) as the sole panelist in this matter on April 2, 2007. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

On April 13, 2007, the Complainant made an unsolicited supplemental filing (hereinafter, the “Complainant’s Supplemental Filing”) including a number of clarifications and material statements relating to the arguments contained in the Response. On the same date, the Respondent filed a communication with the Center informing about its opposition to the possible acceptance by the Panel of the Complainant’s Supplemental Filing.

On April 16, 2007, the Panel issued a procedural order (hereinafter, “Procedural Order no. 1”) accepting the Complainant’s Supplemental Filing and inviting the Respondent to file all comments and documents in relation to the said filing as it considered appropriate. According to Procedural Order no. 1, the Respondent was allowed to proceed with such a filing not later than April 19, 2007. The Respondent filed its supplemental filing (hereinafter, the “Respondent’s Supplemental Filing”) on the said date.

4. Factual Background

4.1 The Complainant

The Complainant is a Belgian entity that was incorporated for coordinating, managing and operating the lottery game named “Euro Millions”. The Complainant operates the game in collaboration with the operators of public lotteries in a number of member States of the European Union.

The “Euro Millions” game was originally launched in February 2004, in the United Kingdom, Spain and France. Those countries were later followed by Austria, Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal and Switzerland. Currently, “Euro Millions” is a lottery played weekly which has become one of the most popular games within the European Union, given its international scope and the high prizes it offers to its participants.

According to the documentation filed by the Complainant, the game is currently well-known and the trademark “Euro Millions” has gained a significant recognition in the countries where the game is offered.

The Complainant is the owner of the following trademarks based on the name “Euro Millions”:

- Community Trademark no. 2871283, registered since September�30,�2002, under classes 9, 16, 18, 25, 28, 38 and 41 of the International Nomenclator;

- Community Trademark no. 2987568, registered since December�23,�2002, under classes 9, 16, 28, 35, 36, 38 and 41 of the International Nomenclator;

- Community Trademark no. 3644564, registered since January�27,�2004, under classes 9, 16, 28, 35, 38 and 41 of the International Nomenclator.

The Complainant does also hold numerous national trademark registrations totally or partially based on the name “Euro Millions”. Such registrations are held in countries like, for example, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Iceland, Norway, Romania, Spain, Switzerland or Turkey. It is important to take into account that all these national registrations were filed after the first two Community trademarks mentioned above.

The Complainant has a presence on the Internet by means of its corporate website, which is connected to different domain names based on the name “Euro Millions” such as ; ; ; ; or .

4.2 The Respondent

The Respondent is a UK company that, since its incorporation in 1987, has been operating in markets connected with lotteries and gaming activities in general.

Among other activities, the Respondent has developed several websites containing information and content, regarding different national public lotteries and offering links to other sites where bets can be placed. Moreover, the Respondent does also own and operate websites where Internet users can purchase goods related to gaming activities (such as, for example, backgammon sets).

4.3 The Domain Names

The domain names and were registered by the Respondent on December 19, 2002. The domain name was registered by the Respondent on February 25, 2004.

At the moment of this decision, the websites connected to the Domain Names can be described as follows:

- The website connected to offers general information on the “Euro Millions” lottery operated by the Complainant. In addition, the website includes a banner and several links to websites where the Internet users can play free games or place bets for national lotteries or even purchase goods related to gaming activities. Most of the said websites are apparently owned and operated by the Respondent;

- The website connected to is connected with the same website as ; and

- The website connected to offers general information on the Euro Millions lottery operated by the Complainant. Again, the website includes different links to websites where Internet users can play free games, place bets or gamble online or even purchase goods connected to gaming activities. Most of these websites are apparently owned and operated by the Respondent.

On January 30, 2006, the Complainant sent the Respondent a cease-and-desist letter, urging it to transfer the Domain Names to the Complainant as well as to cease using the website connected to them.

This letter was answered by the Respondent on February 2, 2006, disputing the Complainant’s claims and stating that the Respondent would strongly defend its rights to the Domain Names.

5. Parties’ Contentions

5.1 Complainant

The Complainant contends in the Complaint that:

- Since 2002, it has made a broad communication of the “Euro Millions” lottery and, accordingly, it has filed several Community and National trademarks that are based on the said name. As a matter of fact, given its great success, the Complainant’s “Euro Millions” trademarks can be currently considered as well-known through Europe;

- The Domain Names are visually, phonetically and conceptually similar to the Complainant’s “Euro Millions” trademarks;

- The Respondent does not hold genuine legitimate rights or interests in respect of the Domain Names since they clearly refer to the Complainant’s trademarks, given their commercial success. Moreover, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is not known at all under the name “Euro Millions” and has not been authorized in any manner for using that name. Finally, the Complainant considers that it is obvious that the Respondent does not hold a legitimate right or interest on the Domain Names as it using them deliberately for creating confusion in the minds of Internet users between the Complainant’s game and the Respondent’s business;

- The Domain Names were registered in bad faith. In this respect, the Complainant states that, in spite of lacking any type of right in the name “Euro Millions”, the Respondent decided to register the Domain Names regardless of the existence of the Complainant’s trademarks and the lack of authorization for using them in connection with the registration of the Domain Names. Moreover, the Complainant indicates that the Respondent did not verify that the registration of the Domain Names could infringe its trademark rights and, hence, did not behave as reasonably required;

- The Domain Names have been and are being used in bad faith by the Respondent as they are connected to websites that contain advertisements of other websites offering lottery-purchase services. Therefore, according to the Complainant, the Respondent is profiting from the advertisements, links and pop-up windows it has included in the websites connected to the Domain Names for attracting Internet users;

- Taking into account all the above-mentioned circumstances, the Domain Names should be transferred to the Complainant.

Additionally, the Complainant contends in the Complainant’s Supplemental Filing that:

- Numerous partners of the Complainant operating national lotteries have been authorized by it for registering in their respective jurisdictions trademarks based on the name “Euro Millions”;

- The “Euro Millions” trademarks have been widely advertised by the Complainant and, hence, have become well-known and are massively perceived as connected to the Complainant;

- The graphical elements connected to a given trademark cannot be represented by means of a domain name and, hence, the Respondent’s arguments in this sense should be rejected;

- The Respondent should have been aware of the existence of the “Euro Millions” lottery at the moment of registering the domain names and since, at that moment, there had already been public statements informing about the launching of the project. In particular, the Complainant attaches an integral script of an interview dated December 18, 2002 broadcast by the French radio station BFM regarding the launch of the “Euro Millions” game; and

- The Respondent’s bad faith is obvious taking into account that it registered the domain name in 2004, after the lottery had already been massively promoted and advertised. The use of the corresponding websites, clearly focused on the Complainant’s, must be considered as a bad-faith behavior as well.

5.2 Respondent

The Respondent contends in the Response that:

- There exist numerous trademarks registrations in Europe by parties other than the Complainant consisting of or containing the words “Euro Millions”. Given the multiple co-existence of identical rights it is clear that the mark “Euro Millions” is generic and is concurrently used by numerous different parties. According to the Respondent, such an impression is reinforced by the fact that the Complainant’s trademarks are based on the combination of two non-distinctive words and, consequently, do not constitute a distinctive word. Finally, the Respondent states that the Complainant has never used the Community trademarks no. 2871283 and no. 3644564 and, hence, such trademarks should not be considered in connection with the present dispute;

- The Domain Names are not confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks since the average reasonably circumspect consumer of lottery games will immediately notice that the Respondent’s website bears no relation to the Complainant’s trademarks or the “look and feel” or dominant and distinctive coloring of the Complainant’s marks. In this respect, the Respondent indicates that there have been no evidence of any confusion between the Domain Names and the Complainant’s trademarks or activities;

- The Respondent decided to register the Domain Names as they combine two generic and common words that, at the moment of registration of the domain names and , was not generally perceived as connected with the Complainant. The Respondent states that there is no evidence that it had been aware of the Complainant’s trademarks and that the Complainant has not shown any convincing evidence of the alleged “broad communication” of the “Euro Millions” game by the Complainant in 2002. The Respondent alleges that it holds a fair interest in the Domain Names as they have been used to publish information and the results of the “Euro Millions” lottery. The Respondent also alleges that, as a matter of fact, before the said game was launched the connected websites dealt with European lotteries in general. The Respondent considers that such use must be considered as a legitimate service as it allows consumers to access information on European lotteries, including the “Euro Millions” game. In this sense, the Respondent states that previous decisions adopted under the Policy (such as Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. Auto Shivuk, WIPO Case No. D2005-0447) have already considered that the provision of information about third parties’ activities (such as the Complainant’s lottery game and other European lotteries) is a genuine bona fide service;

- The Domain Names have not been registered and used in bad faith since the websites connected to them merely aim at providing British and US players with information on the various European lottery games, apart from offering them the opportunity to visit other sites where they may purchase tickets for the various lottery games. In fact, in the Respondent’s view, any “Euro Millions” lottery tickets purchased by means of such websites can only benefit the Complainant. Thus, according to the Respondent, there is no intentional attempt to attract for commercial gain Internet users to the Respondent’s websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website.

In addition, the Respondent contends in the Respondent’s Supplemental Filing that:

- The Complainant’s Supplemental Filing should not have been accepted by the Panel as it does not include any relevant issue which was unknown at the moment of filing the Complaint. Moreover, the acceptance of the Complainant’s Supplemental Filing would, in the Respondent’s view, unfairly lead to an unequal situation for the Respondent within this proceeding since the Complainant would have 24 days for preparing its supplemental filing, while Panel Order no. 1 only granted a 3-day period for the Respondent for preparing and filing its supplemental filing;

- The Complainant is clearly inconsistent when arguing that it holds exclusive rights in the name “Euro Millions”, taking into account the fact that there exist numerous national trademarks held by other parties that do include such a name;

- The Respondent has never seen the script of the radio interview that the Complainant asserts was widely aired on one French speaking radio channel. In this respect, the Respondent considers that it strains credulity to insinuate that the Respondent was listening to a non-UK radio station broadcasting in French at the exact time when this announcement was made. Thus, the Respondent states that the Complainant has alleged bad faith but has completely failed to show any reasonable way in which the Respondent could have known of its activities; and

- The Complainant’s assertion that the registration of the domain name at a later date than and is proof of its bad faith is completely wrong. In this respect, the Respondent considers that it does not take cognizance the fact that it is natural for a party to acquire other similar domain names as and when these become available.

6. Discussion and Findings

In accordance with paragraph�4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove to the Panel the following three circumstances in order to obtain the transfer of the Domain Name:

(A) that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(B) that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names; and

(C) that the Domain Names have been registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.

Before going into these issues, the Panel must address the Supplemental Filings made by the Parties and, in particular, the opposition of the Respondent to the acceptance of the Complainant’s Supplemental Filing.

As indicated in the Factual Background, the Complainant made a supplemental filing during the development of this proceeding without having been required to do so by the Panel. According to the criteria set out in previous decisions adopted under the Policy (see, for example, decisions in Delikomat Betriebsverpflegung Gesellschaft m.b.H. v. Alexander Lehner, WIPO Case No. D2001-1447; Autonation Holding Corp. v. Rabea Alawneh, WIPO Case No. D2002-0058; or De Dietrich Process Systems v. Kemtron Ireland, Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0484), unsolicited supplemental filings should be accepted by the Panel if the following two circumstances are given:

(i) the possible acceptance of such filings should not affect equal treatment of both parties so that each has had a fair opportunity for presenting its case; and

(ii) the supplemental filings should include relevant issues which were not known by the filing party at the relevant time.

The Complainant’s Supplemental Filing permitted the Panel to take note of the two following issues:

- The existence of different national trademark registrations based on the name “Euro Millions” which are held by commercial partners of the Complainant and have been authorized by it; and

- The provision of evidence relating to the statement and public information published or broadcast in 2002 in connection with the launching of the “Euro Millions” lottery by the Complainant.

From the Panel’s perspective, both questions are material to the Panel’s determination in this proceeding. Consequently, the Panel deems that the Complainant’s Supplemental Filing does indeed introduce relevant questions in connection with this proceeding that must be taken into account in order to do justice to the facts.

In addition, after having reviewed the Complainant’s Supplemental Filing and having accepted it, the Panel allowed the Respondent to file all comments and information that it deemed relevant in connection with the Complainant’s Supplemental Filing. Therefore, the Panel considers that the Respondent has been granted a fair opportunity to comment on the Complainant’s Supplemental Filing and indeed the Respondent did make such Supplemental Filing. Certainly, the latter document is a complete and coherent presentation and it does not appear to have been precipitately filed. In addition, the Respondent did not request at any moment an extension of the term granted by Procedural Order no. 1 for the filing of the Respondent’s Supplemental Filing. The Panel considers that, as indicated above, the Respondent has not been prejudiced as a consequence of the above-mentioned filings.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

According to the Policy, the first circumstance that must be proven by the Complainant is that the Domain Name may be considered as identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.

The comparison between the Complainant’s “Euro Millions” trademarks and the Domain Names shows two main differences:

- The trademarks include additional graphical elements apart from the name “Euro Millions”; and

- Two of the Domain Names include the hyphen sign (“-”) between the words composing them, while another one does not include any space at all. Additionally, each one of them does also include the “.com”, “.net” or “.org” suffixes.

These differences are analyzed below in order to see if they are relevant enough for avoiding any risk of confusion between the Domain Names and the Complainant’s trademarks.

As to the first difference (i.e. the lack of inclusion in the Domain Names of the graphical elements appearing in the Complainant’s trademarks), the Panel notes the decision in Park Place Entertainment Corporation v. Mike Gorman, WIPO Case No. D2000-0699, in which the panel found that “since a domain name cannot include design elements, the domain name cannot be identical to the stylized version of the complainant’s mark. But this is not fatal to complainant’s claim”. In this case, the exclusion of the above-mentioned graphical elements cannot be considered as an element relevant for considering that no confusing similarity exists between the Domain Names and the Complainant’s trademarks. This approach is consistent with that adopted, in previous decisions such as Mentor Adi Recruitment Ltd. (trading as Mentor Group) v. Teaching Driving, Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0654 and Asset Loan Co. Pty Ltd. v. Gregory Rogers, WIPO Case No. D2006-0300.

The second difference existing between the Complainant’s trademarks and the Domain Names (the inclusion of the hyphen sign or the lack of space between the words composing the Domain Names as well as the inclusion of the .COM, .NET and .ORG suffixes) is due to the current technical set-up of the Domain Name System (DNS). Therefore, the said difference should not be taken into account in order to evaluate the identity or similarity existing between the Domain Names and the Complainant’s trademarks (in this respect, see, for example, the decisions in New York Life Insurance Company v. Arunesh C. Puthiyoth, WIPO Case No.�D2000-0812; A & F Trademark, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co., Inc. v. Party Night, Inc., WIPO Case No.�D2003-0172; or Promedon S.A. v. Andres Weber, WIPO Case No. D2006-1575).

A further issue is the challenge made in the Response against the validity of the Complainant’s trademarks. A proceeding like the present one, which is governed by the Policy, cannot be considered as a proper forum for deciding this type of allegations. Should the Respondent persist in considering that the Complainant’s trademarks are not valid, it can file corresponding action before the courts, which, unlike the Panel in this proceeding, normally is empowered to decide such an issue.

In conclusion, the Panel considers that the Complainant has proved that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the “Euro Millions” trademarks owned by the Complainant.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph�4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names. In this regard, paragraph�4(c) of the Policy foresees a number of non-limitative circumstances where the Respondent may be considered as holding rights or interests. Those circumstances are:

- To have used the Domain Names or to have made demonstrable preparations for its use before any notice of the dispute in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and/or services; or

- To have been commonly known by the Domain Names, even when no trademark or service mark rights had been acquired; or

- To make a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Domain Names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

In the present case, the Respondent has asserted that it holds a legitimate right in the Domain Names as they were registered on a generic basis in order to offer information on the most important European national lotteries.

It would appear to the Panel that the websites with the disputed domain names and have at some point been used to display information on European national lotteries although currently all of the websites with the disputed domain names appear to contain a number of links to websites which offer online gaming services or products.

The question whether such an offering is bona fide depends in large part on whether such use constitutes an infringement of third-party trademark rights. See, e.g. Google, Inc. v. Xtraplus Corp., WIPO Case No. D2001-0125, Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “M”,WIPO Case No. D2000-0847. The Panel will therefore now proceed to a discussion of the third element of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

As indicated in the Factual Background, the domain names and were registered by the Respondent on December 19, 2002. The registration took place less than two months after the Complainant filed its application for the first of its Community “Euro Millions” trademarks. Taking into account this fact, the Panel considers that, in order to succeed on its claim, the Complainant should have provided evidence reasonably showing that the Respondent was aware of its project and that it wanted to unfairly benefit from it. However, the Complainant has only provided a transcription of an interview that was broadcast by a French radio station, in a country and in a language that were not those of the Respondent. No other evidence has been filed by the Complainant in order to prove that in December 2002 (and not later) the name “Euro Millions” was already known by the general public and that it was perceived as closely linked to the Complainant.

Even taking into account the Respondent’s involvement and knowledge of the European gaming market, the Panel has not been provided with any convincing evidence that the Respondent undertook the registration of and in awareness of the existence of the “Euro Millions” project. It appears that since the first moment the Respondent started operating the said domain names their websites did indeed contain information on the public lotteries of different countries in Europe. Hence, absent better indications suggesting otherwise, the arguments presented by the Respondent in order to justify its behavior vis-�-vis the said domain names arguably do not lack credibility.

The above does certainly not apply to the domain name . Indeed, this domain name was registered in February�2004, this is two weeks after the “Euro Millions” lottery was launched by the Complainant. In consequence, it is clear for the Panel that when the registration of the domain name took place the Respondent was clearly aware of the existence of the Complainant’s project and, more in particular, of the “Euro Millions” trademarks. This conclusion is supported by the evidence shown during this proceeding by the Complainant in connection with the promotion and public communication of the “Euro Millions” game and trademarks on 2004.

This impression is reinforced by the fact that the Respondent is a company which is specialized in the provision of services related to gaming activities and, in particular, to national public lotteries. Therefore, it is not plausible for the Panel that in this case the Respondent had not taken notice of the Complainant’s lottery and trademarks.

In light of the different trademark situation, the arguments filed by the Respondent in order to justify its registration of the said domain name (indicating that such a registration was derived from a fair intention of acquiring other domain names similar to those that were already registered in its name) are not to the legal point.

As to the disputed domain names and , the Panel on the present record cannot consider the Respondent to have behaved in bad faith when registering a domain name corresponding to a trademark which, at the moment of its registration, had not been advertised in the United Kingdom (where the Respondent is seated) and whose application for registration had not been published yet by the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market.

By contrast, the registration of the domain name was most likely made in the knowledge of the actual existence of the Complainant’s lottery and trademarks and, consequently, by the aim of unfairly profiting from them by means of the registration of a domain name which was almost identical to the name of one of the most important lottery games in Europe.

The Panel reaches this conclusion against the background of a number of circumstances:

- The registration of took place on February 25, 2004. As indicated by the same Respondent in the website connected to the said domain name, “the first Euro Millions draw took place on Friday 13th February, 2004”. Taking into account this fact, it is obvious for the Panel that the registration of was not a coincidence.

- As previously indicated, the Respondent is active in the sector of gaming services and goods and, consequently, it seems unreasonable to consider that on February 25, 2004 (i.e. at the date of registration of it was not aware of the existence of the “Euro Millions” lottery and trademarks.

As described in the Factual Background, apart from including free information on the “Euro Millions” lottery, the website connected to contains a number of links to websites apparently owned and managed by the Respondent which offer online gaming services or products for any Internet user visiting them. Therefore, it seems clear that, as a consequence of holding and using the domain name , a number of Internet users will be attracted to its websites as a consequence of visiting the website connected to the said domain name.

Such use falls within the scope of Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy which considers as Respondent behaves in bad faith “by using the domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his/her/its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his/her/its website or location or of a product or service on your website or location”. The same conclusion was reached in numerous decisions dealing with similar circumstances (see, for example, the decisions in Talk City, Inc. v. Michael Robertson, WIPO Case No. D2000-0009; W & G Foyle Limited v. Robert G. Foyle, WIPO Case No. D2000-1543; Sydney Markets Limited v. Nick Rakis trading as Shell Information Systems, WIPO Case No. D2001-0932; or Cigna Intellectual Property Inc. v. Yun Sung Lee,WIPO Case No. D2003-1042).

Taking into account the above, the Panel considers that the Complainant has successfully proved that the Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith but not that the other domain names and were registered and used in bad faith.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel determines:

- the Complainant has proved that the domain names and are confusingly similar to its trademarks but it has not proved that the Respondent does not hold a legitimate right or interest in them and that it registered and used them in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel denies the Complainant’s Complaint in relation to the domain names and .

- the Complainant has proved that the domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks, that the Respondent does not hold a legitimate right or interest in it and that it was registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent; therefore, the domain name must be transferred to the Complainant.

Albert Agustinoy Guilayn
Sole Panelist

Dated: May 2, 2007

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy