The Complainant is Billy Bob's Texas IP Holding LLC of Fort Worth, Texas, United States of America ("United States"), represented by Wick Phillips Gould & Martin, LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, Name Administration Inc. (BVI) of Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by John Berryhill, Ph.D., Esq., United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name ("the Domain Name") is registered with Uniregistrar Corp (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on June 15, 2016. On June 16, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On June 16, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "UDRP"), 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 20, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 10, 2016. On July 7, 2016, the Respondent filed a request for an additional four calendar days to file the Response. In accordance with paragraph 5(b) of the Rules, the Center granted the extension of time. The Response was filed with the Center July 14, 2016.
The Center appointed Nicholas Smith, David H. Bernstein and William R. Towns as panelists in this matter on July 29, 2016. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of 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 is an intellectual property holding company that owns, manages and controls the use of United States Trade Mark registration number 1,611,187 for the word mark BILLY BOB'S (the "BILLY BOB'S Mark"). An application for the BILLY BOB'S Mark was registered on August 28, 1990 with a date of first use in April 1981. The BILLY BOB'S Mark is registered for goods including clothing, decals, playing cards, bumper stickers, calendars and drinking glasses.
The Complainant and its predecessors in interest have used the BILLY BOB'S Mark since 1981 and since 1992, have sold over 1.7 million products bearing the BILLY BOB'S Mark for a total value of USD 18.9 million. The Complainant did not indicate the amount of its sales in any given year; the average of its annual sales during the past 24 years is about USD 800,000.
The Domain Name was created on October 5, 2003. Since that date the Domain Name appears to have been used for a pay-per-click (PPC) page that displays various suggested searches (the "Respondent's Website"). As at or just prior to the date of the Complaint, none of these suggested searches appear to be related to the Complainant or its products. Rather, as of that time, nine of the listed links related to domain names and domain name registration; the tenth link was for "first names". Neither party provided any evidence concerning the content to which the "first names" link resolved. In May 2016, the Complainant's representative made an online inquiry regarding the cost of obtaining the Domain Name. A representative of the Respondent contacted the Complainant and confirmed that the asking price would be USD 120,000. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant makes the following contentions:
(i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's BILLY BOB'S Mark;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights nor any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant is the owner of the BILLY BOB'S Mark having registered the BILLY BOB'S Mark in 1990 and has used the BILLY BOB'S Mark since April 1981. The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the BILLY BOB'S Mark since they both contain the terms "billy" and "bobs", the removal of the apostrophe and space being necessitated by the Domain Name.
The Complainant also contends that there are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent has no trade mark rights or license to use the BILLY BOB'S Mark, nor is it commonly known by the name. The Complainant argues that the Respondent does not make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. Rather, since the registration of the Domain Name, the Domain Name has always been used to divert Internet traffic to a PPC website. The Respondent has also consistently tried to sell the Domain Name, including by advertising on the Respondent's Website. The Complainant contends that by reason of those facts the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
The Complainant also asserts that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, specifically because the Respondent acquired the Domain Name for the purpose of selling it to the owner of the BILLY BOB'S Mark or a competitor for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs. In addition, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has an intention to attract Internet users through confusion between the BILLY BOB'S Mark and the Domain Name. This conduct, in the Complainant's view, amounts to registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent claims the Complainant is seeking to assert rights in the name "Billy Bob", a very common name in the American South, being an abbreviation for "William Robert". The Respondent points out the Complainant's rights in the BILLY BOB'S Mark are limited to the goods and services for which it is registered; none of which are featured on the Respondent's Website.
The Respondent contends it has rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name by reason of the failure of the Complainant to show that the Respondent uses the Domain Name for any purpose for which the Complainant licenses the use of the BILLY BOB'S Mark. The "Billy Bob" name is a non-distinctive and common name used by a wide variety of people so-named and by businesses so-named in a wide variety of fields. The Respondent claims to be a well-known registrant of common words, phrases and names which the Respondent utilizes in connection with paid advertising associated with such words, phrases and names. As the Complaint shows, prior to this dispute the Respondent has clearly been attempting to monetize the Domain Name, which the Respondent contends was based on the significance of the name "Billy Bob" as a name itself (albeit in possessive or plural form) rather than taking advantage of any rights or confusion with the BILLY BOB'S Mark.
The Respondent contends there is no reason to believe the Respondent registered the Domain Name in 2003 for any purpose having to do with the Complainant. The bad faith inquiry requires the Complainant to show that it was the target of some form of bad faith intent specifically arising from the Complainant's trademark claim. The Respondent contends that, standing alone, the fact that the Respondent has long held a Domain Name that the Complainant more recently wants is not evidence of bad faith on the part of the Respondent. In view of the fact that "Billy Bob" is not uniquely or famously associated with the Complainant, but is an extremely common personal name and surname, the Respondent asserts it has clear and substantial value on the secondary market as a common name. The Respondent reasons that the notion that the Respondent registered the Domain Name in 2003 "primarily for the purpose" of selling it to the Complainant by waiting some 13 years for the Complainant to show up and make an offer would be an unreasonable inference.
Furthermore, the Respondent argues that the Complainant has failed to show an attempt by the Respondent to sell the Domain Name to the Complainant. The evidence in the Complaint is that the Respondent was contacted by the Complainant's representative who did not identify himself as a representative of the Complainant. He asked for a price quote and was provided with one. In the Respondent's view, this does not support the Complainant's claim that the Respondent registered the Domain Name in 2003 for the "primary purpose" of selling it to the Complainant or a competitor thereof. 6. Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of proof in respect of the following three elements:
(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) The Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade or service mark. As noted in paragraph 1.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0"), the first element of the Policy serves essentially as a standing requirement. The Panel does not accept the implication arising from the Response that the fact that the BILLY BOB'S Mark is registered for some, but not all, goods and services has any relevance to the Panel's consideration of whether the Complainant satisfies this element.
The Complainant is the owner of the BILLY BOB'S Mark, having a registration for the BILLY BOB'S Mark as a trade mark in the United States. As the ".com" generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) may be discarded in considering the identity or confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark, the Domain Name is almost identical and certainly confusingly similar to the BILLY BOB'S Mark. The removal of the apostrophe and the space between "billy" and "bobs", does not operate to prevent a finding of confusing similarity as the key elements of the BILLY BOB'S Mark, being "billy" and "bob's" are reproduced in the Domain Name (except for the apostrophe). Consequently, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy enumerates several ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name:
"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 your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your 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) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue." (Policy, paragraph 4(c)).
The Panel notes that the system of domain name registration is, in general terms, a "first come, first served system" and, absent pre-existing rights which may be applicable to impugn a registration, the first person in time to register a domain name would normally be entitled to use the domain name for any legitimate purpose it wishes, subject to the right of a trademark owner to seek transfer or cancellation under the Policy (or relief under other applicable laws). Here, the Respondent was the first to register the Domain Name, and in defense of the UDRP challenge brought by the Complainant, says that its registration of the Domain Name is part of its business in registering common words, phrases and names.
The Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name because the Respondent is not known as "Billy Bob", does not appear to use "Billy Bob" in connection with any pre-existing business, and the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent's use of its mark in a domain name. Once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence showing that it does have rights or a legitimate interests in the domain name. Although the burden of proof remains on the complainant, the respondent must come forward with some evidence of its rights or legitimate interests in order to prevail on the second factor. Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
The Respondent has failed to meet that burden of production. It has not adduced any evidence to show use of the Domain Name in respect of any independent business (beyond offering the Domain Name for sale and linking the Domain Name to a PPC site, which appears to be part of the Respondent's business model). Running a PPC page does not per se confer a right or legitimate interest on the Respondent; rather, it can support a right or legitimate interest if the links on the page are related to the dictionary value of the domain name, rather than to its trademark value; WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 2.6 ("Panels have generally recognized that use of a domain name to post…PPC links…would not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests…[but] where domain names consisting of dictionary or common words or phrases support posted PPC links genuinely related to the [dictionary or common] meaning of the domain name at issue, this may be permissible and indeed consistent with recognized sources of rights or legitimate interests under the UDRP, provided there is no capitalization on trademark value").
The entirety of the Respondent's argument as to why it has a legitimate interest is that: (1) it is in the business of monetizing generic terms, and here, the first name "Billy Bob" serves as a generic term that can be monetized; (2) the header on the PPC page located at the Respondent's Website includes a banner showing other names – specifically, "J. Johnson", "J. Black" and "G. Craig" (though the Panel notes that those appear to be first initials and last names, not first names, and they are in any event unrelated to the first name "Billy Bob"); and (3) the page includes a single link to "first names" (though there is no evidence in the record of what that link resolves to and the Respondent notes that, because of stylistic changes it has made, this link no longer appears and the Panel is therefore unable to see where clicking on that link would have taken an Internet user).
These allegations are insufficient to show that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. First, as the panel held in Asian World of Martial Arts Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates,WIPO Case No. D2007-1415:
Respondent's argument that domain name holders have an automatic right to post PPC landing pages keyed to what may be generic or dictionary words is incorrect. To the contrary, as the Panel recently recognized in the mVisible Technologies, Inc. case, many domain names have both dictionary word meanings and trademark (or secondary) meanings, and when the links on the PPC landing page "are based on the trademark value of the domain names, the trend in UDRP decisions is to recognize that such practices generally do constitute abusive cybersquatting. See, e.g., Champagne Lanson v. Development Services/MailP, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2006-0006 (PPC landing page not legitimate where ads are keyed to the trademark value of the domain name); The Knot, Inv. v. In Knot we Trust Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2006-0340 (same); Brink's Network, Inc. v. Asproductions,WIPO Case No. D2007-0353 (same).
Thus, the mere fact that "Billy Bob" may be a first name is not by itself determinative. For starters, the Domain Name here is not but , which most Internet users would read as a plural or possessive form of "billy bob". That is a potentially significant difference in a trademark context, as the possessive Billy Bob's would more often be associated with a trade name or trademark than as a first name. Indeed, as the Respondent's own extensive evidence shows, BILLY BOB'S is a relatively common trademark in the United States for a variety of goods and services, and had been at the time the Domain Name was registered in 2003. The Complainant's registration and first use of the BILLY BOB'S Mark clearly predates the Respondent's registration of the Domain Name. The Respondent further has submitted as annexes to the Response evidence of other U.S. trademark registrations for BILLY BOB'S, BILLY BOB'S BEDS, and BILLY-BOB, presumably from searches conducted solely for the purposes of the present proceeding, predating the Respondent's registration of the Domain Name. It seems evident to the Panel that even a cursory search by the Respondent prior to registering the Domain Name would have revealed the presence of these marks, and likely would have disclosed other third-party uses of "Billy Bob's" as a business identifier or source indicator for various goods and services.
While the Respondent maintains it has the right to register and use a domain name consisting of a commonly used personal name to attract Internet traffic, it seems to the Panel that the Domain Name's attractiveness in this case derives in part from its trade mark usages, of which the Respondent could or ought to have been aware when registering the Domain Name. While there is no evidence in the record that the Respondent has specifically targeted the Complainant's BILLY BOB'S Mark in using the Domain Name – either to generate paid advertising or to assign a monetary value to the Domain Name for purposes of its sale – in the particular circumstances of this case the Panel concludes that the Respondent has not met its burden of production to come forward with evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
The single link to "first names" on the PPC page, and the graphics in the banner listing some last names on the Respondent's Website, does not show that the Domain Name was being used for the dictionary value of the domain name. First, as noted above, 90 percent of the links on the Respondent's Website were about domain names and domain name registrations, not first names. Second, and in any event, a link about first names (as opposed to, say, links about people named Billy Bob) does not show that the Domain Name was being used in connection with links that were relevant to the dictionary meaning of "Billy Bobs". The Respondent's Website here stands in stark contrast to the PPC website in cases such as Landmark Group v. DigiM, L.P., NAF Claim No. 285459, in which the panel found that the respondent had a legitimate interest in using as a PPC page where the links related to various landmarks and travel destinations. Here, a single generalized link to "first names", among many unrelated others, is not directly connected to the Domain Name , or indeed to any common meaning ascribed to that name/term.
Finally, the Panel notes that the Respondent does not offer any other services that might be relevant to the first name "Billy Bob", such as a vanity email service. Cf. International Raelian Religion and Raelian Religion of France v. M Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-1210.
For all these reasons, the Panel concludes that Respondent has failed to meet its burden of adducing evidence showing that it has any rights or legitimate interests in this domain name. Consequently the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Policy, paragraph 4(b) provides that for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), 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 Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or
(ii) The Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) The Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the Domain Name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to 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 the Respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent's website or location. (Policy, paragraph 4(b)).
The registration and use requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy are conjunctive, and a complainant bears the burden of proof on each. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. If either of the required elements is not established, the Complaint must fail. Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0270 (denying transfer of the domain name because the complainant failed to prove bad faith registration).
The Panel does not conclude, on the evidence put forward in the Complaint, that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name in bad faith, e.g., primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to the Complainant. Although not necessarily dispositive as to the Respondent's motives, the Domain Name has been registered for almost 13 years and during that time the Respondent at no point contacted the Complainant to offer the Domain Name for sale.
The Complainant does not allege or provide any evidence to support the Panel reaching a conclusion that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct of registering domain names (including the Domain Name) to prevent trade mark owners from registering a corresponding domain name. Nor is there any basis for the Panel to find that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor: the Complainant and the Respondent are not competitors.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has not satisfied its burden to show that the Respondent registered the Domain Name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to 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 the Respondent's website.
While the Respondent's Website is a PPC website, just as this fact alone does not confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent, that by itself is also not a sufficient basis on the present record to find that the Complainant has satisfied the bad faith element of the Policy. Rather, to find bad faith the Panel would have had to find that the Respondent registered the Domain Name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's Mark. There is no evidence before the Panel to suggest that the Respondent, through the Respondent's Website or otherwise, had "targeted" the Complainant in any manner, such as making reference to the Complainant on the Respondent's Website or offering advertisements for products that compete with the products offered by the Complainant under the BILLY BOB'S Mark.
While the registration of the BILLY BOB'S Mark predates the registration of the Domain Name, and as stated above, the Respondent would have been aware of the Complainant's BILLY BOB'S Mark had it conducted a search prior to registering the Domain Name, the Complainant does not provide sufficient evidence of the reputation of the BILLY BOB'S Mark in 2003, such that the Panel can conclude that the Complainant and its BILLY BOB'S Mark was so well known that the Respondent must have been targeting the Complainant at the time it registered the Domain Name. The Complaint does not provide a year by year breakdown of sales, any evidence of advertising or any other evidence of the fame, esteem or recognition of the BILLY BOB'S Mark in 2003.
The failure to adduce sufficient evidence of the reputation of the BILLY BOB'S Mark at the time of registration would be less of an issue if the Domain Name was a coined word, such that there was no other logical reason for the Respondent to register the Domain Name. This is not the case with the Domain Name, which consists of the plural version of a commonly used personal name (or abbreviation of a commonly used name) that is particularly common in the southern states of the United States. The Response contains persuasive evidence that "Billy Bob" is commonly used as a personal name and as a business name. The Response also provides a list of businesses and registered trademarks for companies unconnected to the Complainant that use the possessive form of "billy bob", namely "billy bob's". It is not implausible that a party unaware of the Complainant would seek to register a domain name consisting of the words "billy" and "bob's" for reasons other than to take advantage of any reputation the Complainant has in the BILLY BOB'S Mark. In other words, even had the Respondent conducted a trademark search prior to its registration of the Domain Name (see, e.g., WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 3.4) and become aware of the Complainant's mark (or third party BILLY BOB marks), it could have legitimately registered the Domain Name so long as its intention was to use it for purposes related to its dictionary/common meaning. It is also not implausible that the Respondent registered the Domain Name with the intention of taking advantage of one of the several BILLY BOB's trademarks in existence at the time of the registration. In any event, the burden is on the Complainant to prove bad faith registration under the Policy by a preponderance of the evidence, and the Complainant has not met that burden.
In the present proceeding the Panel finds that the Complainant has not satisfied its burden of showing that circumstances that bring the case within the provisions of paragraph 4(b) of the Policy exist, or other facts showing that Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith. D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Paragraph 15(e) of the Policy provides that if after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.
The Respondent has sought a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking be made against the Complainant.
In Jazeera Space Channel TV Station v. AJ Publishing aka Aljazeera Publishing,WIPO Case No. D2005-0309, the majority of the three-member panel noted that the onus of proving that a complainant has acted in bad faith is on the respondent, and that mere lack of success of the complaint is not of itself sufficient to constitute reverse domain name hijacking. The majority in Al Jazeera went on to note that:
"Allegations of reverse domain name hijacking have been upheld in circumstances where a respondent's use of a domain name could not, under any fair interpretation of the facts, have constituted bad faith, and where a reasonable investigation would have revealed the weaknesses in any potential complaint under the Policy (see Goldline International, Inc v. Gold Line,WIPO Case No. D2000-1151). See also Deutsche Welle v. DiamondWare Limited,WIPO Case No. D2000-1202, where an allegation of reverse domain name hijacking was upheld in circumstances where the complainant knew that the respondent used the at-issue domain name as part of a bona fide business, and where the registration date of the at-issue domain name preceded the dates of the complainant's relevant trademark registrations.
In Sydney Opera House Trust v. Trilynx Pty. Limited,WIPO Case No. D2000-1224, the panel found that to establish reverse domain name hijacking, the respondent must show knowledge on the part of the complainant of the respondent's right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and evidence of harassment or similar conduct by the complainant in the face of such knowledge.
The three-member panel in Yell Limited v. Ultimate Search,WIPO Case No. D2005-0091 noted that whether a complainant should have appreciated at the outset that its complaint could not succeed, will often be an important consideration.
The Panel is not persuaded that the circumstances of this case justify a finding of reverse domain name hijacking. The Complainant has a long-standing registration for the BILLY BOB'S Mark, which is closely reproduced in the Domain Name. The Panel has found that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Finally, the Complainant's case that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith, while unsuccessful, was not so weak as to render the filing of the Complaint an act of bad faith. In those circumstances the Panel finds that the Complainant had a plausible basis for its Complaint.
The Complainant's submissions under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy that the Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith have not been accepted by the Panel, but in the Panel's view the argument was not so obviously doomed to failure that the Complainant must have appreciated that that was the case, and made a bad faith decision to go ahead with the Complaint anyway. The Panel does not make a finding that the Complainant has engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.
Nicholas Smith
Presiding Panelist
David H. Bernstein
Panelist
William R. Towns
Panelist
Date: August 9, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy