The Complainant is VS Media Inc. of Westlake Village, California, United States of America (“United States”), represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom.
The Respondents are Domain Administrator, See PrivacyG / Zhichao Yang of Hefei, China and Fly Fish of California, Alabama, United States. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and are registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 3, 2019. On January 3, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On January 4, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 11, 2019 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint and a request for consolidation of the Complaint against both above-mentioned Respondents on January 15, 2019.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 18, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 7, 2019. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on February 8, 2019.
The Center appointed Reyes Campello Estebaranz as the sole panelist in this matter on February 17, 2019. 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 is an American digital media company specialized in live-web communications, founded in 1996. It provides online platforms for interactive content such as video and chat services, using the mark FLIRT4FREE to identify a live-streaming adult entertainment website, which has been awarded by the adult entertainment industry, including three awards at the YNOT Awards 2018, “Live Video Chat of the Year” in 2008 and 2009, and “Best North-American Live Cam Site” in 2015.
The Complainant uses the mark FLIRT4FREE in trade since 1999 to identify and promote its online platform and services, holding several trademark registrations for this mark, of which the following are sufficiently representative for the present proceeding:
- United States Trademark No. 2684274 FLIRT4FREE, registered on February 4, 2003, in class 41;
- Canada Trademark No. TMA753430 FLIRT4FREE, registered on November 18, 2009, in class 41;
- Australia Trademark No. 1688538 FLIRT4FREE, registered on April 21, 2015, in class 41;
- European Union Trade Mark No. 014028997 FLIRT4FREE, registered on September 9, 2015, in class 41;
The Complainant also owns the domain name, registered on February 10, 1999, comprising its trademark FLIRT4FREE, which is linked to its adult entertainment website used in connection to its services.
The disputed domain names were registered as follows:
, was registered on January 14, 2018 by Zhichao Yang
, was registered on February 22, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on January 14, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on January 14, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on February 22, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on January 14, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on July 24, 2017 on behalf of “Fly Fish”.
, was registered on January 14, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on January 14, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on February 22, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on February 22, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on February 16, 2016 on behalf of “Fly Fish”.
, was registered on January 14, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on January 25, 2018 by on behalf of “Fly Fish”.
, was registered on September 7, 2012 on behalf of “Fly Fish”.
, was registered on October 10, 2017 on behalf of “Fly Fish”.
, was registered on January 14, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on January 14, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on May 12, 2016 on behalf of “Fly Fish”.
, was registered on January 14, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on January 14, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on January 14, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on January 14, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on January 14, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on January 14, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on January 14, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on February 22, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on January 25, 2018 on behalf of “Fly Fish”.
, was registered on January 14, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on January 14, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on February 21, 2018 on behalf of “Fly Fish”.
, was registered on February 22, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on January 14, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
was registered on February 22, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on January 14, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on January 14, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on January 14, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on January 14, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on January 14, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on January 14, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on January 14, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on February 22, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on January 14, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on January 14, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on January 14, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on February 22, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
, was registered on February 16, 2017 on behalf of “Fly Fish”.
, was registered on January 19, 2018 by Zhichao Yang.
The disputed domain names registered by Zhichao Yang resolve, via redirection, to a website identified by the domain name , and the disputed domain names registered on behalf of “Fly Fish” resolve, via redirection, to a website identified by the domain name . Both third party’s websites (identified by and ) display links to the Complainant’s website, as well as various links to some of its competitors in the same adult online entertainment market sector. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Key contentions of the Complaint may be summarized as follows:
Thought its extensive use of FLIRT4FREE mark since 1999, as well as its marketing campaigns and presence in the main social media platforms, its trademark has acquired reputation and its website has become one of the most renewed adult entertainment websites on the Internet.
The Complainant’s trademark FLIRT4FREE derives from the subject matter of its online platform representing the word “for” with the number “4”, and sometimes it is used with a specific graphic representation. The disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to the Complainant’s brand consisting of common, obvious or intentional misspellings of its mark FLIRT4FREE. Some of the disputed domain names add a random letter (such as or ), others incorporate intentional misspellings (i.e., swap of two letters). For instance, the disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s mark with the removal of the letters “t” and “e”, and in the disputed domain name the number “4” has been changed for the equivalent and phonetically identical word “for”, as well as omitting the letter “r” in the “free” word. Furthermore, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” should be disregarded under the first element analysis, as it is a standard registration requirement. Therefore, under the Policy’s first element analysis, all the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
There is no evidence that the Respondents have registered any trademark for the term “flirt4free”, nor any evidence of other legitimate interests in connection with the disputed domain names, and, therefore, none exception under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy is applicable. The Respondents are not commonly known as “flirt4free”, and do not have any plausible reason for the registration of the disputed domain names. Further, the Respondents have not been authorized by the Complainant to register or to use the disputed domain names. The Respondents are making a commercial gain out of the disputed domain names via redirection, advertisements and links displayed in both webpages the disputed domain names redirect to, trying to free ride on the Complainant’s trademark reputation. The disputed domain names are used to display active content (forty redirect to a website identified by the domain name and the remaining nine redirect to a website identified by the domain name ), containing, in all cases, various links to the Complainant’s website, as well as to competitor’s websites in the same adult online entertainment business. These links are considered as pay-per-click links, constituting cybersquatting.
The disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith with the clear intention of targeting the Complainant’s reputed trademark for an unfair commercial gain. The Complainant’s trademark FLIRT4FREE has been active for twenty years and predates the registration of the disputed domain names by fifteen years from its earliest trademark registration. The reputation of the Complainant’s website is remarkable. In 2016, the Complainant had a total number of 859,360,752 sessions across Europe, Asia, North and South America, experiencing an increase in 2017, reaching over 1 billion visitors across the four regions. For the Asian continent alone, the Complainant’s website visitors increased between 2016 and 2017, with over 178 million new sessions. Further, any average Internet user can have access to its trademark registrations, as they can be found on public trademark databases, and results on popular search engines like Google for the term “flirt4free” list its brand and services as the first hit. Furthermore, the high number of domain names (49) registered by the Respondents clearly targeting the Complainant’s brand, combined with the use of these disputed domain names (to display links to the Complainant’s and some of its competitors websites), are a clear evidence that corroborate the Respondents’ bad faith at the time of the registration.
The Respondents have used the disputed domain names in bad faith to intentionally attempting to divert Internet users to their own websites, which offer competing links, by exploiting the confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the mark FLIRT4FREE. The Respondents have engaged in such conduct in order to obtain commercial gain, through PPC links that redirect Internet users to third-party websites. For this purpose, the Respondents have intentionally engaged in typosquatting, deliberately misspelling the Complainant’s trademark in each confusingly similar disputed domain name, introducing typographical errors or misspelling into the targeted trademark, inserting or removing letters into the mark.
Additionally, by registering the disputed domain names, the Respondents have engaged in a pattern of abusive conduct, registering a number of 49 domain names all targeting the brand FLIRT4FREE. It is noted that the Respondent Zhichao Yang has been involved in 110 domain names UDRP disputes. All these cases resulted in the transfer of the disputed domain names to the complainant, which corroborates that this Respondent is as serial cybersquatter. This supports the Respondents’ bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names.
The Complainant has cited various previous decisions under the Policy as well as various sections of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), that it considers to be supportive of its position.
The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain names.
The Complainant further requests the consolidation of the Complaint against the Respondents based on paragraph 4(f) of the Policy, considering that circumstances and sufficient evidence of this case indicate that all disputed domain names are either commonly controlled by the Respondents or all two individuals are one of the same.
Key contentions of the Complaint regarding the consolidation of the Complaint may be summarized as follows:
All the disputed domain names were registered under the same Registrar, all using the same privacy service to shield the Respondent’s identity. On the May 11, 2018, all the 9 disputed domain names listed under the name “Fly Fish” underwent the same change of name servers, changing from DNSOWL.COM to NS.CLOUDFARE.COM, but changing again and reversing to DNSOWL.COM at the end of 2018. This last server is the same used for the remaining 40 disputed domain names, listed under the name Zhichao Yang. Further, all disputed domain names are hosted on the same hosting server, which reinforces that all are under the control of the same individual.
The Respondent is most likely using aliases to hide its identity. “Fly Fish” is clearly not a real name, and Zhichao Yang is also most likely being used as an alias, as it has been considered in some decisions under the Policy.
It is further to be noted that has been many cases under the Policy against the Respondent Zhichao Yang, all following the same pattern of cybersquatting activity. For instance, in one case, more than 90 domain names targeting the same brand were registered and used to advertise PPC links, which redirected to the complainant’s competitors. The instant case shares similar circumstances being all disputed domain names under the same Registrar, using the same privacy service, redirecting to conceptually similar websites all in the adults entertainment business, and targeting the same trademark FLIRT4FREE.
In addition to that, most of the disputed domain names have been registered during the same period, explicitly between January and February 2018.
Finally, in 2013, on the WhoIs details of the disputed domain name was listed “Liang Zhang, F”, with a postal address stating Anhui and Hefei as part of the address. This alias name, combined with a similar “postal address” to the Respondent’s Zhichao Yang, shows that both are under the control of the same person, or are in fact the same individual. B. Respondents
The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary Matter: Consolidation of the Complaint against Multiple Respondents
Paragraph 3(c) of the UDRP Rules provides that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder, and paragraph 10(e) of the UDRP Rules grants the panel the power to consolidate multiple domain name disputes.
It is further to be noted that where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, UDRP panels look at whether the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties, as well as whether the procedural efficiency would also justify a consolidation scenario. Please see section 4.11, WIPO Overview 3.0.
The circumstances and evidence of this case lead the Panel to conclude that consolidation is advisable and acceptable.
The Panel considers that several circumstances point to the fact that all disputed domain names may probably be subject to a common control owned by the same individual or corporation that hides its identity under not only privacy services shields but also under the use of various aliases.
Relevant circumstances are, in particular, (i) the common Registrar, privacy and hosting server in all disputed domain names; (ii) the fact that all the disputed domain names target the same trademark and follow the same composition pattern, introducing typographical errors or misspellings into the targeted mark, inserting or removing letters into it; (iii) the similar use and content of all disputed domain names, redirecting to websites which include PPC links to the Complainant’s and its competitors’ websites, all targeting the same adult online entertainment sector; (iv) the fact that all the disputed domain names’ registrations used privacy shield services and incomplete contact details; (v) the fact that the name used for the registration of nine of the disputed domain names, “Fly Fish”, is clearly not a real name of any individual, and does not seem to be a company name, as it is not followed by any indication of a social form, which leads to consider that it is a fanciful term used as an alias; (vi) the fact that the name Zhichao Yang (used for the registration of the remaining disputed domain names), was considered possibly an alias in a prior decision under the Policy, and has been used for the registration of a considerable number of domain names subject to cybersquatting cases under the Policy (over 110 cases); and (vii) the pattern of a similar behavior, such as not having replied to the Complaint.
Taking into account all the above-mentioned circumstances, the Panel concludes that the Respondents may be the same company or individual, or commonly controlled by the same company or individual. Furthermore, the Panel considers the consolidation fair and equitable to all Parties, as both Respondents have been given a fair chance to reply to the Complaint and to the Complainant’s request for consolidation, and considers that the procedural efficiency justifies the consolidation of the Complaint against the Respondents. Therefore, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s request for consolidation. 6.2. Substantive Matters
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that, in order to divest a respondent of a domain name, a complainant must demonstrate each of the following:
“(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith”.
The Complainant has made the relevant assertions as required by the Policy. The dispute is properly within the scope of the Policy and the Panel of a sole Panelist has authority to decide the dispute.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that “A panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. The Panel has taken into consideration all of the evidence, annexed material and submissions provided by the Parties. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of the Policy. See section 1.7, WIPO Overview 3.0.
Further, the applicable gTLD in a domain name is considered a standard technical registration requirement and as such is generally disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. See section 1.11, WIPO Overview 3.0.
The Complainant indisputably has rights in the registered mark FLIRT4FREE. The disputed domain names incorporate this mark, being confusingly similar, even though introduce various typographical errors or misspellings into the targeted trademark, inserting or removing letters or introducing minor changes into the mark like swap of two letters, the change of number “4” for its phonetically equivalent, etc., as well as adding a gTLD. See section 1.9, WIPO Overview 3.0. The Complainant’s mark is recognizable in all the disputed domain names, and the gTLD “.com” is a technical requirement disregarded for the purpose of the analysis of the confusing similarity. Accordingly, this Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, and the first element of the Policy under paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Although the Complainant bears the ultimate burden of establishing all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, UDRP panels have recognized that this could result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, requiring information that is primarily if not exclusively within the knowledge of the Respondent. Thus, the consensus view is that paragraph 4(c) of the Policy shifts to the Respondent the burden of coming forward with evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, once the Complainant has made a prima facie showing indicating the absence of such rights or legitimate interests.
The Complainant has asserted that the Respondents have not been authorized to use its trademark FLIRT4FREE. Further, the Complainant has alleged that there is no evidence that the Respondents are neither commonly known by the term “flirt4free” nor own any trademark registration containing or consisting of this term. Furthermore, the Complainant has alleged that there is no evidence that the Respondents have made any demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for any legitimate noncommercial or fair purpose. This effectively shifts the burden to the Respondents of producing evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. However, the Respondents have not replied to the Complaint.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides for the Respondents to contest the Complainant’s prima facie case under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy and to establish rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain names by demonstrating, without limitation:
“(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 a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue”.
It is to be noted that the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering if such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s mark, or otherwise mislead Internet users. See section 2.9, WIPO Overview 3.0.
The evidence provided by the Complainant shows that the disputed domain names are used, via redirection, to display active content including PPC links to the Complainant’s website and to other competitors’ websites in the same adult online entertainment sector. However, the Panel considers that this use competes with or capitalizes the Complainant’s reputation, attempting to mislead and divert Internet users to websites that offer competing links together with links to the Complainant’s website, by exploiting the confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the mark FLIRT4FREE, and creating a high potential risk of confusion and/or affiliation. Further, no information about the real owner of the disputed domain names or any reference to the absence of affiliation with the Complainant and its trademark FLIRT4FREE is provided in any of the websites to which the disputed domain names are linked.
All these circumstances lead the Panel to consider that the use of the disputed domain names cannot be considered as a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.
The Panel concludes that the Respondents have not produced evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case. Therefore, the second element of the Policy under paragraph 4(a) has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii), requires that the complainant establish that the disputed domain name “has been registered and is being used in bad faith”.
At the time of the disputed domain names’ registrations by the Respondents, this Panel considers unlikely that the Respondents did not know about the FLIRT4FREE trademark and did not have it in mind. Several factors in this case lead to this conclusion.
The disputed domain names are almost identical to the Complainant’s trademark, each one differing only in a few letters, adding minor changes like swap of two letters, the change of number “4” for its phonetically equivalent, or introducing typographical errors or misspellings into the mark, inserting or removing letters, etc. The Panel considers that these minor changes constitute misspellings that intrinsically create a likelihood of confusion or at least a high risk of implied affiliation, corroborating that all 49 disputed domain names target the Complainant’s trademark FLIRT4FREE.
The Panel also notes the extensive presence of the trademark FLIRT4FREE over the Internet and its recognition within its market sector, having obtained various awards in the adult’s online entertainment business, and achieving an extensive number of visitors across Europe, Asia, North and South America.
Other relevant factors are the extensive use in time of the Complainant’s trademark since 1999, nearly 20 years, as well as its extensive presence over the Internet, being listed as first result in Internet search tools like Google, and being present in social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube.
It is further remarkable that the Respondents have registered up to 49 domain names targeting the Complainant’s trademark, deliberately choosing not to give any explanation or evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The identical reproduction of the FLIRT4FREE trademark in the disputed domain names with only minor changes may be considered as deliberate misspellings of the mark, targeting all the disputed domain names to the Complainant’s reputed trademark.
The Panel considers that all the above-mentioned circumstances corroborate the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain names.
This conclusion is corroborated by the Respondents’ use of the disputed domain names, redirecting the disputed domain names to third-parties’ websites containing PPC links related to adult online entertainment. Some of the disputed domain names include unauthorized links to the Complainant’s website together with links to some of competitors’ websites, creating a likelihood of confusion or at least a high risk of implied affiliation, all for the purpose of obtaining a commercial gain, trying to free ride on the Complainant’s trademark reputation.
Other cumulative circumstances of this case may indicate that the Respondents are acting in bad faith, in particular: (i) their absence of response, not providing any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use; (ii) the Respondents engagement in a pattern of abusive conduct, registering up to 49 domain names all targeting the brand FLIRT4FREE; (iii) the use of a privacy shield service, as well as the absence of complete contact information in the registration of the disputed domain names; (iv) the use of a name that may not correspond to the names of any real person or company, like the fanciful name “Fly Fish”, deliberately hiding the real identity of one Respondent; and (v) the fact that Zhichao Yang is listed as the respondent in another 110 UDRP disputes, all of them resulting in the transfer of the disputed domain names to the complainant.
The Policy’s non-exhaustive list of circumstances of bad faith in paragraph 4(b) includes the following:
“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have 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 you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”
The Panel considers that the above-mentioned facts of this case are a clear indication of the circumstances described in paragraph 4(b)(ii) and (iv) of the Policy.
In addition, the Panel notes that the nature of the disputed domain names (incorporating the Complainant’s mark differing only in minor changes) are deliberate misspellings that could easily cause confusion, which constitute a deliberate typosquatting case (see section 3.1.4, WIPO Overview 3.0). This Panel considers that is more likely than not that the disputed domain names were registered and used with the intention of creating a likelihood of confusion as to the affiliation or association with the Complainant and its trademark, misleadingly attracting Internet users to the Respondent’s websites, and disrupting the Complainant’s business.
All the above-mentioned lead the Panel to conclude that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has met its burden of establishing that the Respondents registered and are using the disputed domain names in bad faith under the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and , be transferred to the Complainant.
Reyes Campello Estebaranz
Sole Panelist
Date: March 8, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy