Amazntv.com + 3 more domains

The timeline behind amazntv.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

DECISION Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. ewebseo LLC / Rahul Negi / ewebseollc Claim Number: FA2401002079092 PARTIES Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is ewebseo LLC / Rahul Negi / ewebseollc ("Respondent"), USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <amazntv.com>, <amazonamazonmytv.com>, <amazonmmytv.com> and <primevideos-mytv.com>, registered with Atak Domain Bilgi Teknolojileri A.S. and Eranet International Limited. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 14, 2024; Forum received payment on January 14, 2024. On January 18, 2024, January 20, 2024 and January 24, 2024, Atak Domain Bilgi Teknolojileri A.S. and Eranet International Limited confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <amazntv.com>, <amazonamazonmytv.com>, <amazonmmytv.com> and <primevideos-mytv.com> domain names are registered with Atak Domain Bilgi Teknolojileri A.S. and Eranet International Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Atak Domain Bilgi Teknolojileri A.S. and Eranet International Limited have verified that Respondent is bound by the Atak Domain Bilgi Teknolojileri A.S. and Eranet International Limited registration agreements and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On January 26, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 15, 2024 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@amazntv.com, postmaster@amazonamazonmytv.com, postmaster@amazonmmytv.com, postmaster@primevideos-mytv.com. Also on January 26, 2024, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On February 16, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS In the instant proceeding, Complainant has submitted that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "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." The question therefore is whether the named Respondents, because of their use of the alleged aliases, can be said in reality to be "the same domain name holder", which the Complainant submits they are. The factual basis for the Complainant's submission is that the WHOIS information supplied by the Registrar of the domain names shows that the registrant of two of them is one of the named Respondents and the registrant of the two other domain names is a separate named Respondent. However, the Respondent submits that they are the same person or entity because the email contact on the record is the same for all four domain names, the domain names display an identical disclaimer, and all of the domain names have a common activation link. It would therefore be a strange coincidence if that information occurred spontaneously without there being some concert between all of the Respondents. The Panel is also motivated by the fact that the scheme revealed by the evidence has been perpetuated across all four domain names. The Panel therefore finds on the balance of probabilities that the Respondents are all parties to the same enterprise using four domain names. It is therefore clear to the Panel that the four domain names were probably concocted by the same entity using aliases. Having regard to all of those considerations and the whole of the evidence, the Panel finds that the domain names are commonly owned/controlled by a single Respondent who is using aliases and are therefore "the same domain name holder". The proceeding may therefore go forward on that basis. For reasons of convenience, the nominal Respondents will hereafter be referred to as "Respondent". PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant made the following contentions. 1. Complainant is a famous United States company that provides retail store services via the website at <amazon.com> ("the AMAZON website"). Included in its businesses is PRIME, which offers retail store services via the AMAZON website. 2. Complainant has registered trademark rights in the AMAZON, AMAZON.COM, PRIME, and PRIME VIDEO trademarks by virtue of its registration of the trademark for AMAZON with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), Registered Number 2,078,496, registered on July 15, 1997 ("the AMAZON trademark") and the trademark for PRIME, registered with the USPTO, Registered Number 5,218,535, registered on June 6, 2017 and numerous other trademarks and service marks for AMAZON, AMAZON.COM, PRIME, and PRIME VIDEO and derivatives registered nationally and internationally with trademark registration authorities (collectively "the AMAZON and PRIME trademarks"). 3. The AMAZON and PRIME trademarks have become prominent, have attracted substantial goodwill and are uniquely associated with the Complainant's goods and services. 4. In 1994, Complainant registered the domain name <amazon.com> which it uses in its business and in particular for a website which is now the 7th most-viewed website globally and on which it advertises and markets legitimate AMAZON goods and services. The Complainant also registered the domain name <primevideo.com> which it uses for a website on which it advertises and markets legitimate PRIME goods and services. 5. On November 2, 2020, Respondent registered the <amazntv.com> domain name; on December 12, 2020, the <amazonamazonmytv.com> domain name; on November 26, 2020 the <amazonmmytv.com>; and on November 9, 2020 the <primevideos-mytv.com> domain name ( collectively "the disputed domain names"). 6. The Complainant had acquired its trademark rights in the AMAZON and PRIME trademarks well before the Respondent registered the disputed domain names. 7. In registering the disputed domain names, Respondent has incorporated in them the entirety of Complainant's AMAZON trademark and the entirety of the Complainant's PRIME trademark without any authority to do so, and has made various additions such as "my" , "tv" and "videos", some minor alterations and the generic Top-Level Domain ".com", none of which additions or alterations negate a finding of confusing similarity that is otherwise present, as it is in the case of the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names are therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant's AMAZON and PRIME trademarks. 8. Respondent has caused the disputed domain names to be used: a. to resolve to landing pages that prominently display Complainant's genuine activation URL <amazon.com/mytv>; b. to display Complainant's trademarks, to display a header for <amazntv.com> which includes "Amazon Prime Video", the Amazon Logo, indicia such as "Get Started" or "Enter Code" buttons, and buttons that do not link to Complainant's activation URL, and which make no genuine effort to distinguish Respondent from Complainant and asserts a copyright notice for <primevideos-mytv.com> which states "Copyright © 2020 primevideos-mytv.com"; c. with indicia including buttons which link to https://help-activate.com/amazoncom-mytv/ and a landing page at <help-activate.com> which displays oversized green "Start" buttons adjacent to Complainant's genuine activation URL which lead to third party websites and a landing page at <help-activate.com> which advertises competing streaming services such as Peacock; d. with hyperlinks to Complainant's websites for <amazon.com> and <primevideo.com> that often loop back to Respondent's websites; e. in circumstances showing that the Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names or by any of the AMAZON and PRIME trademarks; f. in circumstances showing that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way, that Respondent is not licensed by Complainant to use Complainant's AMAZON and PRIME trademarks, and that Respondent is not an authorized vendor, supplier, or distributor of Complainant's goods and services; g. to attempt to attract traffic to landing pages and links masquerading as Complainant's genuine activation URL <amazon.com/mytv>; h. to promote alternative streaming services; and i. to suggest that the resolving websites of the disputed domain names are authorized by or link to Complainant when they are not and do not do so; j. to pass Respondent off as Complainant; k. to mislead and divert Complainant's customers; and l. in circumstances showing that the use of the disputed domain names is not a fair, nominative, or otherwise legitimate use. 9. By reason of the matters aforesaid, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. 10. The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith. That is so because: (a) the evidence will show that Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant and Complainant's trademark rights; (b) the evidence will show that Respondent registered the disputed domain names with the intention of creating the appearance of an association with Complainant and its products and services; (c) by using domain names that are confusingly similar to the Complainant's AMAZON and PRIME trademarks and by displaying the Amazon Logo and/or bogus links to <amazon.com> and <primevideo.com> at the resolving websites, which it did, Respondent created the false impression that its websites originated with and were approved by, or linked to Complainant; (d) Respondent used the disputed domain names to deliver falsely labelled hyperlinks masquerading as links to Complainant's websites, thereby falsely asserting a relationship between Complainant and Respondent; (e) by using domain names that are confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks to divert Complainant's customers to Respondent's and third parties' websites, Respondent has attempted to benefit commercially, unfairly and opportunistically, from the goodwill associated with Complainant's trademarks, and this conduct of diversion shows the intention to mislead internet users and create confusion within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv); and (f) by using domain names confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks to promote alternative streaming services diverts and disrupts Complainant's business within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). 11. The Complainant has cited numerous prior UDRP decisions to support its contentions. 12. It is therefore submitted by the Complainant that it has shown all of the elements that it must establish under the UDRP and that the domain names should be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. Complainant is a famous United States company that provides retail store services via its website at www.amazon.com ("the AMAZON website"). Included in its businesses is PRIME, which offers retail store services via the AMAZON website. 2. Complainant has registered trademark rights in the AMAZON, AMAZON.COM, PRIME, and PRIME VIDEO trademarks by virtue of its registration of the trademark for AMAZON with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), Registered Number 2,078,496, registered on July 15, 1997 ("the AMAZON trademark"), the trademark for PRIME, registered with the USPTO, Registered Number 5,218,535, registered on June 6, 2017 and numerous other trademarks and service marks for AMAZON, AMAZON.COM, PRIME, and PRIME VIDEO and derivatives registered nationally and internationally with recognized trademark registration authorities (collectively "the AMAZON and PRIME trademarks"). 3. The AMAZON and PRIME trademarks have become prominent, have attracted substantial goodwill and are uniquely associated with the Complainant's goods and services. 4. In 1994, Complainant registered the domain name <amazon.com> which it uses in its business and in particular for a website which is now the 7th most-viewed website globally and on which it advertises and markets legitimate AMAZON goods and services. The Complainant also registered the domain name <primevideo.com> which it uses for a website on which it advertises and markets legitimate PRIME goods and services. 5. On November 2, 2020, Respondent registered the <amazntv.com> domain name; on December 12, 2020, the <amazonamazonmytv.com> domain name; on November 26, 2020 the <amazonmmytv.com>; and on November 9, 2020 the <primevideos-mytv.com> domain name ( collectively "the disputed domain names"). 6. The Complainant had acquired its trademark rights in the AMAZON and PRIME trademarks well before the Respondent registered the disputed domain names. 7. The Respondent has caused the disputed domain names to resolve to websites containing information calculated to mislead internet users, to give the impression that those sites are legitimate and authorized by or linked to the Complainant when in fact they are not, to pass the Respondent off as the Complainant, to divert internet users away from the Complainant, to disrupt the Complainant's business and to cause confusion with the Complainant's trademarks for the benefit of the Respondent and to the detriment of the Complainant and to promote alternative streaming and other services to those of the Complainant. 8. By reason of the matters aforesaid and as demonstrated by the evidence, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's AMAZON and PRIME, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names and the domain names have been registered and used by the Respondent in bad faith. 9. Accordingly, the disputed domain names should be transferred to the Complainant. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "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." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The first question that arises is whether the Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely. Complainant has established by evidence that it has registered trademark rights in the AMAZON, AMAZON.COM, PRIME, and PRIME VIDEO trademarks by virtue of its registration of the trademark for AMAZON with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), Registered Number 2,078,496, registered on July 15, 1997 ("the AMAZON trademark"), the trademark for PRIME, registered with the USPTO, Registered Number 5,218,535, registered on June 6, 2017 ("the PRIME trademark") and numerous other trademarks and service marks for AMAZON, AMAZON.COM, PRIME, and PRIME VIDEO and derivatives registered nationally and internationally with trademark registration authorities ( collectively "the AMAZON and PRIME trademarks"). The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's AMAZON and PRIME trademarks. They are clearly not identical because of all of the extraneous detail the Respondent has added to the trademarks, but it is equally clear that each of them is confusingly similar to the relevant trademark. Having examined them all closely, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the AMAZON and PRIME trademarks. The Complainant's argument to that effect is that the Respondent has taken the entirety of the relevant trademark without any authority to do so, and has incorporated it into the respective domain name. That is correct. The result is that the dominant portion of each domain name is the Complainant's trademark, so it is obviously invoking that trademark. To that dominant portion of the domain names, the Respondent has added a variety of additions and alterations. The Complainant has set them all out in detail and it is unnecessary to repeat them here. Suffice to say that they all emphasize that the relevant domain name is a copy of the relevant trademark and that the additions and alterations do nothing but add to the notion that they are domain names of the Complainant or are created with the approval of the Complainant and will probably lead to official websites of the Complainant, none of which of course is correct. The Respondent has also added in each case the generic Top-Level Domain ".com". None of these additions and alterations can negate a finding of confusing similarity which is present, as it is in the present case in each of the domain names. In fact, they underline and emphasize a finding that the Respondent knew what it was doing and was aiming at the Complainant for its own illegal purposes and concocting domain names that would further that endeavor. It is therefore clear that the disputed domain names are similar to the trademark and confusingly so. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's AMAZON and PRIME trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish. Rights or Legitimate Interests It is now well established that the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have such rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)). The Panel finds on the evidence that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations: (a) the Respondent has chosen to take the Complainant's trademarks and to use them in its disputed domain names, making only the additions and alterations to the trademarks mentioned above, generating the clear impression that they are referring to and invoking the Complainant's AMAZON and PRIME trademarks in the domain names and that the Respondent intended to use the domain names for an unauthorized purpose. The Respondent had no right to do any of this, meaning that there is no foundation at all for finding that it had the right to do so or that it gave the Respondent any legitimate interest in the domain names so created; (b) On November 2, 2020, Respondent registered the <amazntv.com> domain name; on December 12, 2020 the <amazonamazonmytv.com> domain name, on November 26, 2020, the <amazonmmytv.com> and on November 9, 2020 the <primevideos-mytv.com> domain name (collectively "the disputed domain names"); (c) the Complainant had acquired its trademark rights in the AMAZON and PRIME trademarks well before the Respondent registered the disputed domain names; (d) the Respondent had no right to register the domain names and no legitimate interest in doing so. The intention of the Respondent is therefore very clear and it was to invoke the Complainant's name, trademarks and business and to copy them, which cannot conceivably give rise to a right or legitimate interest in the domain names in any way; (e) having registered the disputed domain names, the Respondent has not used any of them for a legitimate purpose but has used them in such a way as to show that they have been registered for use in misleading internet users, an objective that has been put into effect; (f) this conduct was a clear infringement of the Complainant's AMAZON and PRIME trademarks; (g) the evidence on the foregoing matters is contained in the Complainant's Exhibits N, O, P and Q. The Panel has examined all of those Exhibits and the detail contained in them. It is not necessary to repeat the contents of all of those Exhibits. Suffice to say that they all show the use the Respondent has made of the domain names which in summary is that the domain names have been used: (i) to resolve to landing pages that prominently display Complainant's genuine activation URL <amazon.com/mytv>; (ii) to display Complainant's trademarks, to display a header for <amazntv.com> which includes "Amazon Prime Video", the Amazon Logo, indicia such as "Get Started" or "Enter Code" buttons, and buttons that do not link to Complainant's activation URL, and which make no genuine effort to distinguish Respondent from Complainant and assert a copyright notice for <primevideos-mytv.com> which states "Copyright © 2020 primevideos-mytv.com." ; (iii) with indicia including buttons which link to https://help-activate.com/amazoncom-mytv/ and a landing page at <help-activate.com> which displays oversized green "Start" buttons adjacent to Complainant's genuine activation URL which lead to third party websites and a landing page at <help-activate.com> which advertises competing streaming services such as Peacock; (iv) with hyperlinks to Complainant's websites for <amazon.com> and <primevideo.com> that often loop back to Respondent's websites; (h) moreover, the evidence shows that the Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names; (i) the evidence also shows that the use made of the domain names by the Respondent is not a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i); (j) the evidence also shows that the domain names are not being used for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use; the use of the domain names has been demonstrated to be illegitimate because they are being used to mislead internet users; it also cannot be said to be non-commercial in any sense as it clearly is intended to be used by the Respondent for a financial purpose, namely to make money; nor is it fair, as it is clearly unfair to use a trademark without permission of the trademark owner and to pretend that it is being used with the approval of the Complainant as trademark owner; (k) the evidence also shows that the domain names are being used and were intended to be used to pass the Respondent off as the Complainant; (l) the evidence shows that there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent and that the Complainant has not authorized or licensed the Respondent to register the domain names or to use its AMAZON and PRIME trademarks in any way; (m) the Complainant and the Respondent are not affiliated, connected, or associated with each other; (n) all of the above considerations disprove any suggestion that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names. In addition, all of the above considerations show what the Respondent was attempting to achieve. They show that the objective was to lead to third party websites, to divert customers to the Respondent's websites, to advertise competing streaming services such as Peacock, to attract traffic to landing pages and links masquerading as Complainant's genuine outlets and of course to disrupt the Complainant's offering of genuine services. These clear objectives show that none of the Respondent's conduct was legitimate. Moreover, it is hard to believe that such conduct was not designed to make money for the Respondent and the Panel finds that the ultimate objective was to make illicit money for the Respondent by these dishonest means. Thus it is clear that none of the Respondent's conducts gave rise to a right or legitimate interest in the domain names. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As the Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names. The Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish. Registration and Use in Bad Faith It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, the Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive but that UDRP proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression. The Complainant has submitted that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith on several grounds, namely that the Respondent: (a) registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant and Complainant's trademark rights; (b) registered the disputed domain names with the intention of creating the false appearance of an association with Complainant and its products and services; (c) by using domain names that are confusingly similar to the Complainant's AMAZON and PRIME trademarks and by displaying the Amazon Logo and/or bogus links to <amazon.com> and <primevideo.com> at the resolving websites, which it did, Respondent created the false impression that its websites originated with and were approved by, or linked to Complainant; (d) used the disputed domain names to deliver falsely labelled hyperlinks masquerading as links to Complainant's websites, thereby falsely asserting a relationship between Complainant and Respondent; (e) by using domain names that are confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks to divert Complainant's customers to Respondent's and third parties' websites, Respondent attempted to benefit commercially, unfairly and opportunistically, from the goodwill associated with Complainant's trademarks, and this conduct of diversion shows the intention to mislead internet users and create confusion within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv); and (f) by using domain names confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks, the Respondent promoted alternative streaming services and diverted and sought to disrupt Complainant's business within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii); and (g) the Respondent has, by virtue of all of the facts, shown that it registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith. The Panel finds that each of the grounds relied on by the Complainant has been made out by the detailed case presented on its behalf. Finally, in addition to the specific provisions of the Policy and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain names using the AMAZON and PRIME trademarks and in view of the conduct that the Respondent has engaged in since registering them and using them, the Respondent registered and used them in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression. The Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish. The Complainant has correctly cited several prior UDRP decisions that support its contentions on all of the elements required to be proved. The Complainant has established all of the elements that it must show under the Policy and is therefore entitled to the relief it seeks. DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <amazntv.com>, <amazonamazonmytv.com>, <amazonmmytv.com> and <primevideos-mytv.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC Panelist Dated: February 22, 2024 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.