WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Palmerston Limited, Hutchison 3G UK Limited, Hutchison 3G Ireland Limited and Hutchison Whampoa Limited v. Alan Mahon
Case No. DIE2005-0001
1. The Parties
The Complainants are Palmerston Limited, Douglas, Isle of Man; Hutchison 3G UK Limited, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; Hutchison 3G Ireland Limited, Dublin, Ireland; and Hutchison Whampoa Limited, Hong Kong, SAR of China, represented by A.A.Thornton & Co, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The Registrant is Alan Mahon, Fermoy, County Cork, Ireland, represented by Bill Holohan & Associates, Ireland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with IE Domain Registry Limited.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the�“Center”) on April 14, 2005. On April 15, 2005, the Center transmitted by email to IE Domain Registry Limited a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On April 15, 2005, IE Domain Registry Limited transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Registrant is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative, billing, and technical contacts. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .IE Dispute Resolution Policy (“the ieDRP”), the WIPO Dispute Resolution Rules of Procedure for .IE Domain Name Registrations (“the Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .IE Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“the Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2.1 and 4.1, the Center formally notified the Registrant of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 10, 2005. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5.1, the due date for Response was June�8,�2005. The Response was filed with the Center on May 19, 2005.
The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on June�3,�2005. 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 Complainants
The four Complainants are companies registered under the laws of Isle of Man, England and Wales, Republic of Ireland and Hong Kong, SAR of China, respectively. The Fourth Complainant is the ultimate parent company of the First, Second and Third Complainants.
The Fourth Complainant paid in the region of �4.4 billion sterling for the third generation (3G) telecommunications licence in the UK (including Northern Ireland) and €50.7 million euros for the equivalent licence for the Republic of Ireland. Those licences are operated in the UK and the Republic of Ireland under the brand name “3”.
Trade marks
The First Complainant is the registered proprietor of the following three figurative trade marks, which the Second and Third Complainants are licensed to use in the UK and the Republic of Ireland respectively:
First, Community trade mark registration no. 2223873 filed on May 4, 2001, in respect of goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41 and 42. This mark comprises the numeral “3” in stylized form with a device of three dots coloured red, blue and green.
Second, Community trade mark registration no. 2550796 filed on January 21, 2002, in respect of goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44 and 45. This mark comprises the numeral “3” in significantly stylized form.
Third, Irish designation of international trade mark no. 791217 registered October�15,�2002, in respect of goods in Class 9. This mark (“the Three Lozenge Trade Mark”) comprises the word THREE in block capital letters with a device of three lozenges coloured red, blue and green.
Registrant
The Registrant is an amateur photographer.
Chronology
Because timings of relevant events are important, it is convenient to set out the facts in a chronology:
July 4, 2002: First articles appeared in UK and Irish newspapers to the effect that the Complainants’ 3G services would be branded “3”.
July 18, 2002: The Registrant applied to the Republic of Ireland Companies Registration Office for registration of a business name THREE.IE in respect of “general commercial activities”.
July 20, 2002: The Registrant registered the Domain Name.
August 1, 2002: Registration of the business name THREE.IE was granted.
December 17, 2002: A printout shows that the home page of the website at the Domain Name had an “under construction” notice.
December 17, 2003: The Complainant’s trade mark agent, AA Thornton & Co, emailed the Registrant on behalf of an unidentified client offering to buy the Domain Name for €1000 and noting it did not currently lead to an active website.
December 23, 2003: The Registrant emailed back saying that he had not given any thought to selling the Domain Name as he had been working towards launching a photography website for the sale of his own photography in the new year. He acknowledged that there was no website at “www.” at present but referred to a temporary website at “www./temp” in preparation for launch early 2004. He asked for further time to consider the matter and indicated that his costs to date were well in excess of €1000.
December 23, 2003: As of this date there was a temporary website at “www./temp” branded THREE.IE with a logo which appears to be similar to the one on the website dated March 30, 2005, referred to below (although the December�23, 2003 printout in not in colour.) The homepage stated: “Welcome to T. This is a photography web site housing a collection of images gathered by our team of photographers. Check out our gallery and get in touch with our team. All our photographs are for sale, so see what you think, browse through the gallery and send us an email!”. The “about us” page stated: “Who are we? Well that’s simple. We are actually a few amateur photographers. This website is a showcase for our favourite photographs. Some of the shots we’ve taken were liked by our friends and family. And so we decided to set up a website and try and recoup some of our photography costs by selling some of our better shots. Why three? Why not! Actually there is a reason we chose as our preferred address, a simple one too. There are three primary colours in play all around us and especially in our photography. Red, Green and Blue. It works for us.”
January 8, 2004: The Complainant’s agent emailed the Registrant noting from the temporary website that the Registrant had made preparations to launch a photography business and that, while it appreciated that this took time, effort and money and that the costs could easily have exceeded €1000, this effort and expense would not be lost by transferring to a different domain name.
February 13, 2004: The Registrant’s solicitors, A&L Goodbody, emailed saying that their client had expended considerable time, money and effort in developing his photography business model to operate through the Domain Name and that he had designed the entire branding strategy around the Domain Name, the word “three” and a logo depicting the three primary colours. They stated that they could ascertain no business presence or trade mark use in the Republic of Ireland by AA Thornton’s client and offered to transfer the Domain Name for €5000.
September 30, 2004: There were two telephone conversations between the parties’ representatives in the course of which the Registrant’s solicitors asked if AA Thornton were representing Hutchison Telecoms.
November 3, 2004: The Complainant’s agent emailed the Registrant’s solicitors upping the offer to €2000 and asserting that the Registrant had acted in bad faith by registering the Domain Name in full knowledge of the Complainant’s highly visible marketing and promotion of its brand.
November 29, 2004: The Registrant’s solicitors emailed that their client was not interested in selling the Domain Name to the First Complainant. They denied bad faith and said that their client applied for the Domain Name in August 2002, based on the registered business name THREE.IE issued on August 1, 2002. The application was based on an interest in developing an online photography website supporting his personal hobbies and interests. They went on to say: “Our client’s previous offer to transfer the domain name for €10,000 was a commercial attempt by our client to resolve this dispute.” They said that their client never wanted to dispose of the Domain Name but had no appetite or means for a legal dispute and that, in view of the derisory counter offer and statements about their client, the offer was withdrawn.
March 17, 2005: The Complainant’s agent wrote setting out in detail why it expected to succeed with this a complaint under the ieDRP and offering €5000 for the Domain Name. There was no response to this communication.
March 30, 2005: As of this date, there were three photographs of landscapes offered for sale on the website at the Domain Name. The website was branded THREE.IE in capitals, adjacent to which was a white circle with three short horizontal wavy lines coloured red, green and blue.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or misleadingly similar
The Three Lozenge Trade mark filed October 15, 2002, claims the priority date of July�16, 2001.
There was significant publicity surrounded the granting of the third generation (3G) telecommunications licence to the Fourth Complainant in the UK and Ireland. Early in July 2002, the name “3” that was to be given to the services that would be offered through the 3G licences was unveiled amid great publicity.
The First Complainant and a subsidiary company of the Fourth Complainant GDH (BVI) Limited are the registrants for numerous domain names containing the word “three”, including , , , and .
The Complainants accept that the Domain Name is not identical to the First Complainant’s trade marks. It is, however, misleadingly similar. The word THREE features prominently within the Lozenge Trade mark. The other two trade marks feature the numeral “3”.
Under trade mark law the question of whether marks are confusingly similar is a subjective test. It was held by the European Court of Justice in the SABLE / PUMA case (C-No. 251/95 of November 11, 1997) that “in determining the existence of likelihood of confusion, trade marks have to be compared by making an overall assessment of the visual, phonetic and conceptual similarities between the marks. The comparison must be based on the impression given by the marks, bearing in mind in particular, their distinctive and dominant elements”.
It is relevant that under the naming policy imposed by the IE Domain Registry, domain names of less than two characters are not permitted, and accordingly, the domain name 3.ie is not available to the Complainants.
Rights or legitimate interests
The Registrant as a sole trader registered the business name T solely for the purpose of obtaining that domain name. When the business name was registered on August 1, 2002, there was no underlying business or activity in respect of the name T. The business name and domain name do not correspond to the Registrant’s personal name or pseudonym or existing business at the time the business name and domain name were registered.
As of December 17, 2002, the website at the Domain Name was merely under construction.
Registered or used in bad faith
The Registrant’s identification of the entity seeking to acquire the Domain Name in the telephone conversation on September 30, 2004, confirms the Registrant’s knowledge of the activities and reputation of one or more of the Complainants.
The letter from the Registrant dated November 29, 2004, rejected previous offers and indicated that the transfer would only take place at €10,000.
The website at the Domain Name as of March 30, 2005, purports to offer photographs made by amateur photographers, although only three photographs are offered for sale. There is no underlying business. The correspondence from the Registrant’s representative dated November 29, 2004, stating that the website merely supports the Registrant’s personal hobbies and interests is at odds with the activity identified for the registered business name THREE.IE in August 2002. The website is offered merely to try and avoid a finding of bad faith against the Registrant.
The website currently at the Domain Name includes logos that comprise the numeral 3 in conjunction with three different colour lozenges. The Registrant is intentionally attempting to attract internet users to a website by creating confusion with earlier registered trade marks owned by the First Complainant, particularly earlier Community trade mark registration no. 2316933. The website is being used in a way that is likely to dilute the reputation of the trade and service marks in which the First Complainant has rights.
The Domain Name was registered and is used primarily in order to prevent the First Complainant from reflecting its registered trade mark in which it has rights in a corresponding domain name.
B. Registrant
The Complainant has the burden of proving its case on the balance of probabilities.
Identical or misleadingly similar
The Registrant was entitled to register a business name according to the rules in 2002. Before registration the Registrant searched the Companies Registration Office database for any conflicting business names and found none.
It would not have been possible to find a record of the Complainants’ logo marks applied for in early 2002, as the online database searches only for word marks. In any case the Registrant did not search as he was then unaware of the existence or business of the First Complainant.
The Complainants have provided no evidence of the alleged July 16, 2001, priority date for the Three Lozenge Trade Mark. An Irish Patents Office search dated May�9, 2005, confirms that no priority date is given. The operative date is the filing date of October�15, 2002, which postdates registration of the Domain Name.
The fact that the word ‘three’ is so generic makes it all the more likely that many different people would want to use the word ‘three’ and for a variety of purposes. Here, a photography website wishes to make reference to the three primary colours, being the colours from which all other colour combinations are produced. This has a direct, logical, demonstrable, and scientific connection with the name chosen for the site.
The Registrant was not on notice either actual or constructive of the ‘3’ press publicity. The telephone Company ‘3’ has very little reputation in Ireland now and certainly had none in 2002. The Registrant was not aware of the Complainants then although he is now as a result of the Complaint.
The trade marks with the stylised numeral 3 are not confusingly similar to the Domain Name. In any event the Complainants have produced no evidence to this effect.
There is no similarity between the respective businesses of the parties which would be likely to confuse consumers.
The Complainants’ website in Ireland is “”. The Domain Name is not misleading similar to this, visually, aurally, or otherwise.
Rights or legitimate interests
Before the Registrant was put on notice of the Complainants’ interest in the Domain Name the Registrant in good faith intended to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.
The Registrant is making legitimate fair use of the Domain Name and is not intent on misleading or diverting consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or otherwise of the Complainants.
The fact that the business name and corresponding domain name do not correspond to the Registrant’s personal name or pseudonym or existing business does not bring into question the existence of rights in law or legitimate interests.
The website at the Domain Name has been live since December 2003. Correspondence between the Registrant and third parties details the Registrant’s attempts to go live using the Domain Name.
The Registrant’s hosting company advised that obtaining the business name would be the best route to securing the Domain Name.
The site was under construction as at the December 17, 2002. As indicated to AA Thornton on the December 23, 2002, the Registrant’s ‘temporary’ website was available at “www./temp”. The site was not set up in bad faith.
The Complainants have failed to prove that the Registrant has no rights in law or legitimate interests.
Registered or used in bad faith
Inactive use of a domain name does not, in itself, support a finding of bad faith.
The Registrant intends to supply goods or services in a bona fide way and is in no way trying to capitalise upon the Complainants’ trade mark rights, which relate to an entirely different category of goods and services. The Registrant did not register the Domain Name in bad faith and is not using it in bad faith. The Complainants have produced no evidence to support their view.
The Registrant did not register the Domain Name to prevent the Complainants from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name.
The Registrant did not register the Domain Name for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainants. There is no evidence of any possible or potential confusion on the part of actual or potential customers / consumers.
The Registrant by using the Domain Name did not attempt to attract internet users to his website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his web site or location or of a product or service on his web page or location. The parties are in different businesses and so likelihood of confusion is unlikely.
The Registrant never intended to sell the Domain Name. It always has been his intention to start a business venture. He is currently employed fulltime and so progress in developing the site is gradual, as time and financial resources allow.
The Registrant is of limited means and given the potential legal costs of a conflict with the Complainants, he considered €5,000 a reasonable sum for the time and effort and expense he had put into the design and concept of the website at the Domain Name and his other costs and expense. His suggesting that he would consider an appropriate offer of compensation, in such circumstances, does not constitute bad faith. The Registrant was prepared to engage in correspondence to try and settle the matter but was not obliged to agree terms.
Following the accusation of ‘cybersquatting’ and ‘acting in bad faith’, the Registrant withdrew from discussions. The Registrant found such correspondence insulting and bullying.
The Registrant’s then representative was a professional trade mark agent who used the resources at his disposal to identify the AA Thornton’s client.
The amount of €10,000 in the letter of November 29, 2004, was a simple typographical error and at no stage was that figure requested by the Registrant.
The unstylized numeral 3 on the website at the Domain Name was not in bad faith. There is no evidence of confusion. If it has caused confusion, the Registrant would be willing to remove it.
Reverse domain name hijacking
The Complainants have no basis on which to assert that the Registrant has no rights to or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. The Complainants have no valid objection to the Domain Name. The Complainant must have been aware of this as they were professionally advised throughout.
6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 1.4 of the ieDRP states that “the Complainant carries the burden of proving, prima facie, that the three conditions specified in paragraph 1.1 are met”. These conditions are dealt with in turn below.
A. Identical or misleadingly similar
The first condition in paragraph 1.1 of the ieDRP is that the Domain Name is identical or misleadingly similar to a protected identifier in which the Complainant has rights.
Under paragraph 1.3.1 of the ieDRP, “protected identifiers” include “trade and service marks protected in the island of Ireland”. The Complainants rely on the three registered trade marks specified above. All are protected in the island of Ireland. The Three Lozenge Trade Mark is an international trade mark designated in the Republic of Ireland. The other two are Community trade marks which apply in both parts of Ireland.
There is no dispute that both Community trade marks predate registration of the Domain Name on July 20, 2002, but the parties disagree whether the Three Lozenge Trade Mark does so. The Complainants claim a priority date of July�16,�2001; the Registrant says that the operative date is October 15, 2002. Do trade mark rights have to be acquired before the registration of the domain name in issue? There is no such requirement in the ieDRP. Paragraph 1.4 of the UDRP overview on the WIPO website at (“the WIPO Overview”) says that the consensus view of UDRP panels is that registration of a domain name before a complainant acquires a trade mark does not prevent a finding of identity or confusing similarity although it can be difficult to prove bad faith in such case. No doubt the drafters of the ieDRP – which is based on the UDRP – would have expressly provided otherwise had it been intended to depart from this consensus. It is therefore unnecessary at this point to reach any conclusion about the operative date of the Three Lozenge Trade Mark.
The Complainants concede that the trade marks are not identical to the Domain Name. Are they misleadingly similar? As with the UDRP (see paragraph 1.2 of the WIPO Overview), the Panel is concerned here with a straight comparison between trade marks and Domain Name and not with the content of any website.
The word THREE in block capitals and with minimal stylized effect is by far the most prominent feature of the Three Lozenge Trade Mark whereas the lozenge device is subsidiary. The domain suffix can be disregarded for the purpose of the comparison. The Panel concludes that the Domain Name is misleadingly similar to the Three Lozenge Trade Mark.
The Complainants have not satisfied the Panel that either of the Community trade marks is misleadingly similar to the Domain Name. The Panel’s overall impression is that their use of numeral “3” – rather than the word THREE – in conjunction with the additional elements mentioned above is sufficient to differentiate them from the Domain Name.
The Complainants rely on the fact that is not available to them under the .ie naming policy. However, in assessing misleading similarity the Panel is concerned with a comparison of the actual trade marks and domain name at issue irrespective of whether other domain names may or may not be available to the Complainant.
The Complainants do not rely on any common law rights in the term THREE.
The Domain Name is misleadingly similar to a protected identifier, namely the Three Lozenge Trade Mark, in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or legitimate interests
The second condition in paragraph 1.1 of the ieDRP is that the Registrant has no rights in law or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
Paragraph 3.1 of the ieDRP specifies three non-exhaustive factors which may be considered as evidence of rights or legitimate interests. Only the factor in paragraph 3.1.1 is relevant here:
“where the registrant can demonstrate that, before being put on notice of the complainant’s interest in the domain, it had made demonstrable good faith preparations to use the domain name in connection with a good faith offering of goods or services or operation of a business”
It is common ground that there was no active website at the Domain Name on December 17, 2003, when the Complainants representative first emailed the Registrant.
The Panel does not consider that the business name registration constitutes evidence of demonstrable preparations in accordance with paragraph 3.1.1 as the purpose of this was to enable the Registrant to comply with the registration policy of IE Domain Registry Limited and register the Domain Name.
The printout of the temporary website at “www./temp” is dated December�23,�2003 – after the first approach on behalf of the Complainants on December 17, 2003. The Registrant has produced emails between himself and his web host / web developer between November 10 to December 1, 2003, but these concern the technicalities of launching a website at the Domain Name and reveal nothing about the intended content of the website.
The Registrant also asserts that it did in fact have a good faith intention to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. But mere expectation of future activity is usually irrelevant unless it occurred before the Registrant had notice of the Complainant’s interest in the Domain Name. See the first case under the ieDRP: Electricity Supply Board v. Lislyn Retail Limited and Northern Retail Limited, WIPO Case No. DIE2003-0001.
In the Panel’s view, the Registrant has not demonstrated that, before being put on notice of the Complainants’ interest in the Domain Name, it had made demonstrable good faith preparations to use it in connection with a good faith offering of goods or services or operation of a business. So none of the three non-exhaustive factors in paragraph 3.1 apply in this case.
In the Electricity Supply Board case, the Panel found that the additional factors of previous long use (30 years) and Northern Ireland trade marks were sufficient to constitute legitimate rights. However, no additional factors which might demonstrate legitimate interests have been brought to the Panel’s attention in this case.
The Registrant has no rights in law or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
C. Registered or used in bad faith
The third condition in paragraph 1.1 of the ieDRP is that the Domain Name has been registered or is being used in bad faith - unlike the UDRP which requires registration and use in bad faith.
Paragraph 2.1 of the ieDRP specifies six non-exhaustive factors which may be considered as evidence of registration or use in bad faith. These also differ in significant respects from the equivalent UDRP factors.
Before turning to those factors, the Panel considers that it would be helpful to consider the central issue between the Complainants and the Registrant, namely the purpose for which the Registrant registered the Domain Name. Did the Registrant register the Domain Name primarily to target the Complainants or their businesses in some way? Or did he register the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of his own, genuine, photography business?
The Registrant says that because the word “three” is so generic, many different people are likely to want to use it and for a variety of purposes. That is undoubtedly true but the question here is why this Registrant in fact wanted this Domain Name. The Panel cannot of course know what was in the mind of the Registrant. And in this kind of proceeding, the Panel does not have the benefit of the tools available in litigation such as discovery of documents or testimony from witnesses. The Panel can only make its best assessment based on the evidence before it.
As mentioned above, the parties disagree whether the Three Lozenge Trademark predates the Domain Name. The Panel agrees with the Registrant’s submission on this point. The registration date on the certificate is October 15, 2002, and this is also the designation date shown on an Irish Patents Office search. The priority date of July�16,�2001, claimed by the Complainants apparently relates to a UK trade mark filed more than six months before the international application. On the face of it, the international application is not entitled to the earlier priority date and the Complainants have not supplied any explanation or evidence supporting their position.
However, that is not the end of the matter. Under the UDRP, while registration of a prior domain name is not normally in bad faith because the registrant could not have contemplated the complainant’s non-existent right, bad faith can still apply where a registrant is aware of a complainant and clearly aims to capitalise on any potential complainant’s rights. This often arises in the case of company mergers where new trade mark rights have not yet arisen. (See paragraph 3.1 of the WIPO Overview.) The Panel sees no reason why a similar approach should not apply here.
The Registrant denies that he was aware of the Complainants or their business when he registered the Domain Name and claims that he has only become aware of their operations since the Complaint. However, the Panel notes the following:
First, the Registrant applied for the business name only some two weeks after the Complainants’ proposed branding was first mentioned in Irish and UK newspapers (which are widely available in the Republic of Ireland).
Second, the logo on the Registrant’s website is remarkably similar to the Complainants’ Three Lozenge Trade Mark.
Third, the Registrant has produced virtually no evidence of intended or actual use of the Domain Name for a photography business venture, notwithstanding that he claimed this from an early stage and notwithstanding the Complainants’ assertion in the Complaint that the website was produced only to avoid a finding of bad faith and that there was no business underlying it. The Registrant says that, because he is fully employed, progress in developing the site has been gradual, as time and financial resources allow. But even if the business has had a very slow take off, one would expect that after some 18 months of operation of the site he could produce evidence that he at least attempted to operate a genuine business at the site e.g. a business plan, evidence of some sales / turnover even if minimal, bank statement, accounts, supplier or customer correspondence, marketing literature etc. However, all that has been provided to the Panel is the business name certificate (which the Registrant acknowledges was acquired to enable registration of the Domain Name) and printouts of a four page website at the Domain Name offering three photographs for sale.
The Registrant puts forward a clever rationale for linking the Domain Name with a photography business (three primary colours on which all colours are based) and indeed he includes this explanation on his website. Nonetheless, the Panel’s overall impression from the information available to it is that the website was primarily an attempt to justify the registration of the Domain Name and was never intended to be a genuine business.
Each of the above matters alone would probably not suffice. But taking them all together the Panel is driven to the conclusion that the Registrant was aware of the publicity surrounding the Complainants’ branding in July 2002, and registered the Domain Name to capitalise on the Complainants’ potential rights and on the likelihood that they would want the Domain Name for the part of their business in the Republic of Ireland. In reaching this conclusion, the Panel bears in mind that under the ieDRP complainants are only required to prove their case on a “prima facie” basis.
The Panel considers that the non exhaustive factors in paragraphs 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 of the ieDRP apply here:
“2.1.2 where the domain name has been registered or is used primarily in order to prevent the complainant from reflecting a Protected Identifier in which it has rights in a corresponding domain name; or
2.1.3 where the registrant has registered or is using the domain name primarily for the purpose of interfering with or disrupting the business of the complainant;…”
The Panel concludes that the Domain Name has been registered in bad faith.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 5.1 of the ieDRP and 14 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name be transferred to the First Complainant.
�������������������������������������������
Adam Taylor
Sole Panelist
Dated: June 24, 2005
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy