WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Jewson Limited v. Doug Jewson
Case No. D2008-0676
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Jewson Limited, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Potter Clarkson LLP, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The Respondent is Doug Jewson, Carlos, Minnesota, United States of America, represented by Stratton Ballew PLLC, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with SRSplus.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 30, 2008. On May 2, 2008, the Center transmitted by email to SRSplus a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On May 2, 2008, SRSplus transmitted by email to the Center its verification response, advising that the Respondent is listed as the registrant, and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on May 9, 2008. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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 proceedings commenced on May 15, 2008. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 4, 2008. The Response was filed with the Center on May 27, 2008.
The Center appointed Warwick Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on June 5, 2008. 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.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant
The Complainant operates a builders’ merchant business in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It has some 470 branches in that country.
The Complainant holds United Kingdom trade mark registrations for the mark JEWSON, in international classes 37 and 42. These registrations have been in effect since October 1986 and July 1987, and generally cover construction services, renovation of buildings, carpentry services, interior design, and the like. The Complainant also holds Community Trade Mark registrations for the mark JEWSON, in a number of classes. The Community Trade Mark applications (for JEWSON, and JEWSON plus device) were filed in November 1999, but seniority for the applications was claimed on the basis of the British registrations going back to the 1980s.
The Complainant has produced evidence showing extensive use of the mark JEWSON in connection with its activities in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, going back as far as 1836.
The Complainant operates a website at “”.
The Respondent and the Domain Name
The Domain Name was registered as along ago as January 1, 1997. The Whois report produced by the Complainant with its original Complaint, showed the registrant as “Jewson Online Enterprises”, of the same address as the Respondent Mr. Jewson. It appears that the registration particulars were altered between the date of the Complainant submitting its Complaint, and SRSplus providing its verification report to the Center showing the registrant as “Doug Jewson”. The Center notified the Complainant of the registrar’s advice that the current listed registrant of record is “Doug Jewson”, and requested a corresponding amendment to the Complaint. The Complaint was duly amended to name the Respondent as “Doug Jewson Jewson Online Enterprises”.
The Response identifies the Respondent as Dr. Douglas Vance Jewson, a 67 year old retired physician. According to the Response, Dr. Jewson developed an interest in genealogy, and in particular the Jewson family lineage, as early as 1948. His pursuit of that interest over the years since then has involved visits to the United Kingdom, and regular correspondence with individuals in that country having a similar interest in the Jewson family history.
In May 1972, the Respondent’s brother produced a paper entitled: “A Working Paper for Research on Genealogy of the Name Jewson”. A copy of this paper was provided with the Response. The Respondent says that, from 1975, he began collaborating with a Mr. Brian Robinson in putting together the Jewson family genealogy. Although Mr. Robinson died a few years ago, by the time of his death the Respondent and he had decided that progress with the work could best be made through the Internet. The Domain Name was registered for that purpose in 1997.
The Respondent says that the extended Jewson family database contains over 3,800 names of individuals residing in the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, and other locations around the world. He says that, as a former professional photographer, he wanted to make family photographs (upgraded to digital format) available to the people in his database. He considered the Internet to be an excellent means of transmitting photographs to all members of the Jewson family, and registered the Domain Name with that purpose in mind.
The Respondent explains that when the Domain Name was registered, “the service bureau put ‘Jewson Online Enterprises’ on the registration”. The Respondent states that he did not then use that name in any business or trade, and still does not. However, it appears that he did nothing about changing the registration until very recently. As it was put it in the Response: “It seemed burdensome to him to change the listing”.
The Respondent says that, currently, the Domain Name does not point to any active website – it just points to a page, which is otherwise blank, bearing the words “”. The Respondent denies an allegation in the Complaint that the Domain Name has been linked to a website which provides click-through links to third party United Kingdom-based websites, including some which offer goods or services in competition with the Complainant.
The Respondent says that he was ready and able to put his Jewson family genealogy on a website at the Domain Name, when he ran into “the current problem with Complainant”. He says that he now aspires to complete his Jewson family genealogy project (which he describes as a complex and complicated undertaking). He says that the pursuit of the Jewson genealogy has become his life’s work.
Complainant’s Investigations Prior to the Filing of the Complaint
The Complainant says that it only became aware “recently” of the registration of the Domain Name. That occurred when a watch service used by the Complainant picked up what the Complainant contends was an active website operating at the Domain Name.
The Complainant says that it checked the “Wayback machine” (the facility provided on the website at “”, and was only able to find three web pages listed, all of them back in the year 2000. No pages were available from any subsequent years.
The Complainant produced the results of Google searches conducted on the word “Jewson”. The results printout produced by the Complainant shows that a website at the Domain Name was ranked as the seventh hit on a worldwide search on “Jewson”, and the fifth hit when the search was limited to web pages from the United Kingdom. Attempts to access a website at the Domain Name were met with the Google response that the website was unavailable.
However, the Complainant says that it was able to access a website at the Domain Name, by simply “clicking onto ”. The Complainant has produced copies of web pages to which it says the Domain Name has resolved. Screenshots taken on January 31, 2008 were produced at Annex 9 to the Complaint, and the notations at the bottom of these web pages do appear to confirm that the screenshots were taken from a website at the Domain Name. The January 31, 2008 screenshots consisted of landing pages, with links to third party websites generally concerned with home improvements and repairs. For example, the following “Popular Categories” were listed: “Home Improvement”, “Bathroom Lighting”, “Flooring”, “Metal Roofing Materials”, “Bathroom Remodelling”, “Home Repairs”, and “Window Treatments”. One of the click-through links was to a third party website at “”. The click-through link consisted of the words “Wickes Home Improvement”. The Complainant has produced certain pages from the website at “” (also printed on January 31, 2008), and these pages sufficiently show that the Wickes company operates, in the United Kingdom, in the same general field of business as the Complainant. The Complainant notes, correctly, that many of the links to third party websites shown in the January 31, 2008 screenshots, are links to websites operated by businesses in the United Kingdom.
Prior to filing its Complaint, the Complainant also ran an online search of the trade mark register maintained by the United States Patent and Trade Mark Office. The only registration or application it found which incorporated the word “Jewson”, was owned by a firm in California.
The Complainant also produced a printout from a website at the Domain Name, made on December 19, 2007. On that date, the website consisted of a landing page, with links to third party websites. Under a “Greek Gods” category, there were sponsored links to a number of sites associated with Greece, but also a link to a site which appears to have been a pornographic site “www.SexInTheUK.com”. (When the Complainant attempted to access that website, the access was blocked, with a note advising that “Adult Content” had been filtered).
The Complainant also ran Google searches on “Jewson Online Enterprises”, but those searches failed to turn up any hits which appeared to relate to the Respondent.
Respondent’s Response to Complainant’s Reported Investigations
The Respondent denies that there has ever existed a website at the Domain Name which provides links to third party sites as alleged by the Complainant. Specifically, the Respondent says in his response:
“Clicking on continues to bring up a blank page and the only way for Complainant to have achieved any linkage is only through internet search engines that provide other linkages. For examples see Annex C. Dr. Jewson receives no revenue from “click-through” links, as there are none, and that is not the intended purpose of his website.
Complainant falsely accuses Dr. Jewson of activities that he has not, is not, and will not undertake.”
Annex “C” to the Response consists of a printout from the website at “”, showing research results for a search on “www.” conducted on May 22, 2008. The search results produced do not appear to show any reference to the Respondent.
Pre-Commencement Communication between the Parties
There was no pre-complaint correspondence between the Complainant and the Respondent.
The Panel’s Attempts to Access a Website at the Domain Name
In accordance with normal practice, the Panel himself attempted to access any website which might be operating at the Domain Name. Keying in the Domain Name only produced a page (otherwise blank) bearing the expression “”. The pages from the year 2000 which are available on the Wayback Machine were the same.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant says:
1. The Complainant has rights in the mark JEWSON in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and in the European Union, pursuant to its registered JEWSON marks in those jurisdictions. The Complainant also has unregistered rights in the mark JEWSON pursuant to its long and extensive use of that expression in commerce. The mark has become distinctive of the Complainant’s products.
2. The Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s JEWSON mark.
3. The Respondent has no legitimate business interest in the Domain Name. The Domain Name was not used for many years, and it has not been used by the Respondent to generate any business of buying or selling goods and/or services.
4. The Respondent has pointed the Domain Name to a website containing links to third party websites at which goods or services are offered by the Complainant’s competitors.
5. The Respondent has no trade mark registration for “Jewson”.
6. The website at the Domain Name has been designed to take business away from the Complainant, by mis-use of the Complainant’s registered mark JEWSON. The Complainant has been receiving payment for click-throughs to sites accessed through the website at the Domain Name. One of those third party websites was a pornographic website. Linking a website at the Domain Name to a site of that nature, was calculated to tarnish the Complainant’s trade mark and service mark JEWSON.
7. The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith:
(i) It is the Complainant’s belief that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith.
(ii) The Domain Name is being used in bad faith, because it has been pointed to a website which then leads to UK websites operated by competitors of the Complainant who offer the same goods and/or services which the Complainant offers in the United Kingdom under its JEWSON mark.
(iii) The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source of goods and/or services. Alternatively, or in addition, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark by way of sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location of a product or service on the Respondent’s website.
(iv) The Domain Name is being used primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant.
B. Respondent
The Respondent contends:
1. The Complainant has no registration of the mark JEWSON in the United States Patent and Trade Mark Office. That precludes the Complainant from relying on its asserted rights, apart from common law rights if any, in the Respondent’s country of domicile.
2. The Respondent’s interest in, and activities in connection with, the Jewson family genealogy, provide him with a legitimate interest in the Domain Name. For example, the Internet is an excellent venue for making Jewson family photographs available through the website at the Domain Name, to all members of the Jewson family.
3. The pursuit of the Jewson genealogy provides the Respondent with meaning and purpose at this time in his life.
4. The Respondent has not registered or used the Domain Name in bad faith. His object was and is to further his study and dissemination of Jewson family genealogy and related information. He had no intent for commercial use or monetary gain.
5. The Domain Name was selected as it represents the Jewson family. It was not adopted to frustrate or disrupt the Complainant’s business.
6. The Respondent has no intention of transferring the Domain Name to any third party for any purpose. He intends to complete his study of the Jewson family genealogy and the history of that family throughout the world.
7. The Complainant’s allegations are scandalous at best and slanderous at worst. They consist of boilerplate allegations made without any due diligence or investigation, and as such are clearly made in bad faith.
8. The website at the Domain Name is not used for any commercial purpose, nor for any linking purposes for any commercial business. The Respondent is not in competition with the Complainant, nor is he assisting any other business to compete with the Complainant.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Relevant Provisions of the Policy - General
Under Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of proving the following:
(i) That the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) That the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) That the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires the 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”.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant succeeds on this part of the Complaint.
It holds registered trade mark and service mark rights in the mark JEWSON in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and/or in the European Union, and those registrations clearly constitute “rights” for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The fact that the Complainant does not hold any registered rights in the United States of America where the Respondent resides, is irrelevant to the enquiry under this part of the Policy. A registered trade mark or service mark anywhere in the world is sufficient to satisfy the threshold requirement of having trade mark rights, and the location of those rights does not matter (see the “consensus view” of WIPO domain name panels, as reported at paragraph 1.1 of the Center’s online document “WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions”).
The Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s JEWSON mark. The “.com” suffix is not taken into account in the comparison which is required by paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy (see on that point the decision of this panel in World Natural Bodybuilding Federation v. Daniel Jones/The Dot Caf�,WIPO Case No. D2008-0642. There are numerous other panel decisions to the same effect).
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out a number of circumstances which, without limitation, may be effective for a respondent to demonstrate that it has rights to, or legitimate interests in, a disputed domain name, for the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Those circumstances are:
(i) Before any notice to [the respondent] of the dispute, use by [the respondent] of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Where [the respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) [has] been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if [the respondent has] acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Where [the respondent is] making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.
If the circumstances are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing by the Complainant of absence of rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name on the part of the Respondent, the evidentiary burden shifts to the Respondent to show, by plausible, concrete evidence, that the Respondent does have a right or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name.
That approach is summarized at paragraph 2.1 of the Center’s online “Overview” document, as follows:
“A Complainant is required to make out an initial prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4 (a)(ii) of the UDRP”.
In this case, the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s JEWSON mark, and the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its mark, whether by incorporating it into the Domain Name or in any other way. The Respondent does not claim to have been using the Domain Name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, and the Complainant has produced evidence suggesting that the Domain Name has been linked to third party United Kingdom websites operated by competitors of the Complainant (and one link to a pornographic website). Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether that evidence (which is denied by the Respondent) is to be accepted, the Complainant has clearly provided sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. The evidential onus therefore shifts to the Respondent to show that he enjoys some rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
It is convenient to look first at the example of a right or legitimate interest provided at paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy – where a respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) is commonly known by the disputed domain name.
The Respondent says that his family name is “Jewson”, and that the Domain Name was selected as it “represents the Jewson family”. There is evidence that the Respondent has been involved in researching the Jewson family history, or genealogy – an apparently authentic 1972 Jewson family history document was produced with the Response. This document names its author as a Mr. Dwight Jewson, with an address in the same State of the United States of America as that in which the Respondent resides. The Respondent says that the author was his brother, and the document does contain a reference (as one of the sources of information used in the document) to one “Douglas V Jewson”. The Response has been filed by the Respondent’s attorneys, and it contains the required certificate of completeness and accuracy (Rules, paragraph 5(b)(viii)). In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, these matters are sufficient to satisfy the Panel that the Respondent’s surname is indeed Jewson.
Registration of a disputed domain name consisting of the respondent’s surname, or family name, has been held to be sufficient to entitle the respondent to rely on the “commonly known by” defense. In GA Modafine S.A. v. Mani.Com,WIPO Case No. D2001-0388, the disputed domain name was . The Respondent was a Mr. Suresh Mani, and Mr. Mani claimed that he had used the disputed domain name prior to the dispute, as a means of communication with persons of the same name who all could place their origins to a certain part of the Indian subcontinent. The complainant in GA Modafine S.A. v. Mani.Com argued that the disputed domain name should have included Mr. Mani’s full name, or should have been something like . The three-member panel did not agree. It said: “The Respondent’s surname is Mani and he is commonly known as such. He is entitled to use it on the internet.”
As in the GA Modafine S.A. v Mani.Com case, the Domain Name here consists of the Respondent’s surname. The Respondent would certainly have been commonly known by his surname, both back in 1997 when the Domain Name was first registered and in late April or early May 2008 when it appears that the Respondent registered the Domain Name in his own personal name. Subject only to certain questions which arise out of the fact that the Domain Name was originally registered by “Jewson Online Enterprises”, the Respondent has produced sufficient evidence to establish the defense under paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.
It appears from the Response that no entity called “Jewson Online Enterprises” has ever existed. The Response says: “This is moniker that Dr. Jewson did not use then and does not use now as he is not in any business or trade, but it seemed burdensome to him to change the listing.” That statement seems to be consistent with the results of the Complainant’s Google searches on the expression “Jewson Online Enterprises” – no “hits” were returned. The real party in interest when the Domain Name was registered in January 1997, and the real registrant, appears to have been the Respondent Dr. Jewson. As the Panel has found that he was commonly known by the family name “Jewson” at that time, he is entitled to the safe harbor protection of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.
It is not clear to the Panel how it was achieved, but in or about early May 2008 the registered particulars were altered to reflect the real ownership position; the Domain Name was transferred into the name of Dr. Jewson personally. It may be that the Respondent procured the transfer to himself immediately he received notice of the Complaint (when a copy was emailed to him on April 30, 2008). Certainly by May 2, 2008, SRSplus had effected a change in the registration details, to show the registrant as the Respondent, Doug Jewson.
That sequence of events does raise a question as to whether the Respondent and SRSplus have complied with paragraph 8 of the Policy, which prohibits transfers of domain names during a pending administrative proceeding. The issue would be whether or not it could be said that this administrative proceeding was “pending” at the time the Domain Name registration was changed.
However there is no need for the Panel to make any finding on that issue, as the Panel has found that Dr. Jewson was in any event the relevant party in interest back in January 1997 when the Domain Name was first registered. No separate entity called “Jewson Online Enterprises” appears to have ever existed. In those circumstances, the validity or otherwise of the early May 2008 change in the registration details (to show the Respondent as the registrant) could not affect the outcome of the case.
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds for the Respondent on this part of the Complaint, and the Complaint must therefore be dismissed.
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Having regard to the Panel’s findings in Section 6C of this decision, it is not strictly necessary for the Panel to make any findings under this heading. However, the Panel thinks it appropriate to add that the Complaint also fails for want of proof of bad faith registration of the Domain Name. For many years, the consensus view of panels deciding cases under the Policy has been that complainants must prove not only bad faith use of the disputed domain name, but also that the respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith (see for example, Telstra Corporation v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; there are numerous other panel decisions to the same effect).
In this case, the Complainant has done nothing more than assert its belief that the Domain Name was registered in January 1997 in bad faith. It has not pointed to any specific circumstances from which the Panel might reasonably infer that the Respondent was motivated by bad faith when he registered the Domain Name back in January 1997. Evidence that the Domain Name may have been linked in January 2008 to web sites containing links to web sites of the Complainant’s competitors, is insufficient to support an inference that the Respondent intended to use the Domain Name in this way 11 years earlier (especially when the Domain Name may not have been used at all in the 10 year period after it was registered). And the Panel cannot draw any dispositive inference in this particular case from the Respondent’s apparent failure to use the Domain Name in the period between 1997 and 2007. Putting together a family history or genealogy strikes the Panel as the kind of activity that might well be worked on for a while, then put on one side for a lengthy period while the researcher/compiler’s attentions were directed to more pressing matters. Researching and compiling family trees is often a leisure time, or retirement, activity, and there could be any number of legitimate reasons for long periods of inactivity.
One thing which did give the Panel cause for concern on the bad faith registration question, was the original registration of the Domain Name in the name “Jewson Online Enterprises”. That name suggests a business of some sort, and intended business use would be inconsistent with the Respondent’s present contention that the Domain Name was registered for non-commercial, family purposes. The Respondent’s explanation – that the name was selected by his “service bureau” – is not entirely satisfactory, but the Panel is in no position in an administrative proceeding such as this, where there is no cross-examination of witnesses or discovery of relevant documents, to reject the explanation as being false. And the Respondent did frankly concede that he is not in any business or trade, and that he has not used the name “Jewson Online Enterprises” – a dishonest respondent might well have attempted to bolster its case by claiming some prior bona fide offering of goods or services by “Jewson Online Enterprises”. The Respondent did not do that.
Sometimes a late change in the registrant of a disputed domain name will be evidence of a bad faith attempt at “cyberflight”, at least where the transferor was aware that a complaint under the Policy had been filed or was about to be filed. But that does not appear to be the case here - the ownership “change” is to a person (Mr. Doug Jewson) who frankly acknowledges that: (i) he was the person responsible for the original registration of the Domain Name back in 1997, and (ii) that he has been responsible for the use of the Domain Name since then, and remains so responsible.
While the late change to the Whois particulars does not appear to indicate “cyberflight” in this case, the Panel does have concerns about some aspects of the Respondent’s recent conduct. First, the Respondent has not adequately explained what appear to have been genuine links to third party advertisers on a website at the Domain Name. Secondly, the Respondent has not explained why, if he considered it “burdensome” to change the Domain Name registration to the correct name back in 1997, it was apparently no longer “burdensome” to do so when he was faced with the present Complaint. Those matters have given the Panel reason to pause, but in the end the delay between the January 1997 registration of the Domain Name and the commencement of the present proceeding is just too great for the Panel to safely infer that the Respondent was motivated by bad faith intentions back in January 1997. The Panel accordingly finds that the Complainant has failed to prove bad faith registration of the Domain Name.
7. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
The Respondent has alleged that the Complaint has been brought without any due diligence, and that the Complainant’s allegations have been made in bad faith.
Those allegations are rejected. The Complainant has provided satisfactory proof that it owns a trade mark which is identical to the Domain Name, and it has also provided evidence of the Domain Name having been pointed to a website through which products of the Complainant’s competitors have been offered for sale. The Complainant ran appropriate trade mark and Google searches on “Jewson Online Enterprises”, and found nothing. When the Complaint was originally submitted, the Domain Name appeared to have been registered by a non-trading entity.
In the foregoing circumstances, there is no basis for a finding that the Complaint has been brought in bad faith, notwithstanding that the Complaint has ultimately proved unsuccessful. The Respondent’s allegations of bad faith on the part of the Complainant are accordingly rejected.
8. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied. The Respondent’s allegations of bad faith against the Complainant are dismissed.
Warwick Smith
Sole Panelist
Dated: June 20, 2008
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy