snubbr.com

GoDaddy reviews : Should I buy GoDaddy?? Possibly my first UDRP...

Get GoDaddy web hosting for just $1.99. Click here to use coupon...

Special $7.49 .COM sales. Click here for this special deal...
Well, I have been in this business for 6 years and it looks like I may be receiving my first UDRP, or possible court battle. If it goes that far, look for me on the national news circuit. ( Even though I know I could do it on my own, one of our esteemed specialists here should expect a call from me. ).

Many of you know I spout a lot of things here, but I do practice what I preach (it does involve my fansite). Though I will not gaurentee a victory, the odds are very strongly in my favor. I'll keep you all posted (yes, I am all giddy). Wonder if the ICA would ask for donations on my behalf??..

Comments (65)

Wohooo, good luck!!.

I can't wait for more news :-).

Cheers,.

Frank..

Comment #1

I do hate to be a tease, because I really do not want to sell. I received a call and it did catch me off guard. The woman I talked with was very nice and very cordial, even with giving me veiled threats a number of times and mentioning the TM status and how successful in the past he was in defending his mark. I did not tip my hand at all, I did not give a knee jerk reaction, but I did say I have dealt with previous challenges. I did tell her I was granted permission and was even given official photos to use for the site... then there was a brief silence..

Then the tactic was to play up "it is for charity" plans and if I really admired him, I would give it up easily.

It ended cordially, but I heard the underlying actions loud and clear. To be continued.....

Comment #2

Wow man, you are definitely one die-hard Justin Timberlake fan..

Comment #3

I'll be disappointed if you don't hear back from them in the next 6 months...

Comment #4

Justin is DaBomb....

They are calling me Monday.. I will update...

Comment #5

Haha, best of luck to you!.

I'll be watching CNN!..

Comment #6

I want to ask, if I am approached like you have been approached, and I say, "OK, I'll sell it to you for xxxx." Is this considered bad faith?.

If yes, does this mean that I cannot mention that I want to sell it unless they ask to buy first?..

Comment #7

There's the rub. Some parties do that, then use it as an excuse to show bad.

Faith on the registrant's part...

Comment #8

There is nothing stopping them from making offers. But the tactic is used, and then claim "bad faith".

I usually don't help people who are only finding ways to get the "payoff" from BS fansites (Yes, I do believe 99% of "fansites" are shams and the domain owner is just looking for the payoff, but trying to do it smartly, or in many cases, not so smartly). But never jump at the first chance you get, never give in easily, keep your ground, stress the reasons why you want to keep the name, show them what you have done..

In all honesty, I do not want to sell, I've had many offers, some that were pretty good. But life is not all about the money...

Comment #9

I know it was some months ago, but any updates on this case?..

Comment #10

Yes there is. Just can't say anything yet. Sorting through the amounts of BS being thrown to me. But it is amazing how people willl outright lie. Update in about a month or so.

What started as as a 500,000.00 demand (yes a cool half mill for a site that made exactly zero) will soon be a WIPO...

Comment #11

What the honk your asking price was 5 mill??.

Wow, it is getting cool, sign me up for the update newsletter :-).

As always, good luck...

Cheers,.

Frank..

Comment #12

Umm so you're saying that you would rather lose the name in court than sell it for 1/2 a million dollars? I might have got the wrong end of the stick but if so, I know what I would do!..

Comment #13

Hey gooster,.

I tried to be funny, I think they demanded 5 mill from him because of the "infringment" (as he said he made no money with it, it is a true fan site).

Correct me DNquest if I am wrong :-) (after you are allowed to...).

Cheers,.

Frank.

P.S:.

I would reconsider to be a fan.............

Comment #14

I was wondering if you site is a Prince one? Seeing how Prince wants all his fansites shut down...

Comment #15

Philip, Wishing you the best, and hope to hear some good news soon...

Comment #16

Phil,.

It doesn't have to be a WIPO, it could be NAF or a few other arbitration units (although WIPO/NAF are the most common).

Sorry to hear that you are going to have your first UDRP. I'm fighting off potentially my first two that involve acronyms, both of which I believe I would win.

Anywho, best of luck with your action. Do your research and know there is plenty of supporting cases out there (sometimes that lead to opposite conclusions). You may be wise asking for a 3 member panel if you think the decision may be close...

Comment #17

Yes. Made this experience. Since then - phone call "I do not discuss domains via phone, send an email". And I do not respond any emails...

Comment #18

Good luck.

On the back of this dispute I regged United Democrats-Republican Party .com - UD-RP.com for short...

Comment #19

No,no, no to set the record straight, they were going to sue for a half million becuase of their "perceived" value of the domain. I have never considered selling the domain, let alone talk money. I outright refused to even concider selling the name, repeatedly. I have done so on 3 previous interactions. I even refused all the unsolicited offers. I am not selling and I have no zero revenue.

They are trying to pound me with paperwork and a false allegations of "extortion", but I have a witness to my last conversation where I repeated about a dozen times "I have no interest in selling". I figured the lawyer spent about 10-15 billable on this so far.

The funny thing is, in all the paperwork they sent, they proved my non-commercial good faith usage of the domain (screen shots). They even sent previous cases highlighting how a domain can be used in good faith. They did all the work for me.

They are submitting to WIPO. They are receiving my response this weekend. I do have a feeling if they push the wrong buttons, this could have some exposure.

EDIT TO ADD: Yeah, I would take a half mill if offered. I am crazy, just not stupid. It is funny to go from suing for that and then go the WIPO route...

Comment #20

It sounds like you have a pretty strong case. It is not uncommon for if they fail in taking the domain off you through a legal battle, they will buy it from you for a large amount (it obviously means a lot to them). For example, Adam Dicker was sued over Elephant.com by elephant.co.uk. He won and now look where the domain forwards to?..

Comment #21

I think you meant to say you have no revenue. Otherwise that sentence can.

Make it appear you did.

Just kidding, Philip. Good luck and good hunting on this one.

Good thing this won't be decided on Christmas or New Year's either...

Comment #22

Actually, my phrase is "I have never attempted or will attempt to generate revenue nor have I received any revenue with this domain".

Knit picky.

And nothing is airtight.....

Comment #23

This thread is a great read. Can't wait to continue reading updates...

Comment #24

Likewise. Following this with keen interest and I hope that they get what's coming to them (and no that's not Philip's domain!)..

Comment #25

Some of you may know already, I ended up losing my UDRP. I am POed here and the panelist did a very poor job. He referenced a wrong domain when deciding my fate adn he cojntradicted himself in terms of allowed.disallowed testimony. There is much to wrte here and I have vented elsewhere. I will get into more details soon. I don't feel like doing a double thread vent, I am trying to keep my sanity.

I got screwed and I am amazed how the panelist showed (and no show) what was evidence was submitted. They did not even bother to do a simple archive.org serach to see how the domain was being used. That would have been good since me and the other party claimed different things.

UGH pissed off so much here.....

Comment #26

File an "appeal" to the decision in district court immediately. Ask for a temporary injunction...

Comment #27

WTF???.

Sorry to hear that.....that shows you how things can go wrong badly, even if noone thinks so....Hope you can take Fonzies advice..

Good luck, I feel with you.......

Frank..

Comment #28

Bummer.

How come YOU didn't have archive evidence yourself? "They did not even bother to do a simple archive.org serach to see how the domain was being used.".

Not jumping you, just asking...

Comment #29

Phil,.

Do you have a link to the decision?..

Comment #30

The decision link: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2007-1841.html.

The jist of this one says they want to see a lot of "activity" and "interactivity" on fan sites or they will rule them as "passive use" and "parked".

Man, it is really turning more and more into a case of super-develop or die ... and holy crap I better get going because I have about 600 full blown creative, unique, interactive websites to build.

I don't see the wipo reflecting our "internet property" mentality of domaining anytime soon, despite the strong market that already exists in this form (just read the latest dnjournal).

Frustrating and scary...

Comment #31

Horrendous... it's like he didn't even look at the use of the site... what bs... Are you going to appeal or what??..

Comment #32

He obviously looked at the use of the site, because he makes reference to it's use very clearly. However, he stated that having a one page site that is nothing more than a resume of the person's achievements, is hardly a fan site. Basically, he was saying in a nice way that it was a half-assed 5 minute job that wasn't fooling anyone.

I'm not really a fan of anything or anyone, so I can't really speak on the matter. However, I think that typically fans are crazy about the person and would have photo galleries, video, message forums to chat with other fans, etc... I think thats the thought process that the panelist had at least. And unfortunately he may have a point.

Though, I'm not really the type of person who likes other people telling me how I have to express myself, so I can easily understand DNQuest's point as well.

We've been saying for a long time that you must develop to be safe. But until WIPO establishes some sort of criteria for how much development is required to be considered legitimate, none of us will really be safe.

Anyway, DNQuest, if you think the law is on your side and choose to fight this, you have my support and best wishes!..

Comment #33

How the hell could they sue you over a generic like that? I own a few animal name .com, and always thought them safe if developed. What was the reasoning behind this one?.

~Jose..

Comment #34

Rememnber generic words can be trademarked, such as windows, apple etc. So I'm guessing that they trademarked "elephant" and wanted elephant.com to go with their elephant.co.uk. Also note that anybody can sue for anything, but they will not necessarily win as in this case...

Comment #35

Adding to what newms stated, generics can be tm'ed as long as it's not descriptive for the service or product. Apple can tm the term Apple for pc and technology stuff, but no one can tm the term apple for selling the fruit...

Comment #36

Happens all the time...and it will only get worse.

See UDRP decisions under WIPO or Arb-Forum for:.

Pig.com.

Zero.us.

Zero.org.

Sallie.com.

Kiwi.com.

Elders.net.

Noble.com.

Image.biz.

Shoes.biz.

Target.org.

Post.com.

CarSales.com.

Landmarks.com.

Geometric.com.

Heathrow.com.

Barcelona.com.

Mexico.com.

PuertoRico.com.

NewZealand.com.

Crew.com.

LoveThyNeighbor.net.

Sweeps.com.

...and there are so many more. The reasoning is usually(pick one): Trademark overreach Overzealousness Domain Coveting Covetous latecomers.

Generic category defining domains are often more valuable than.

A trademark or at least as valuable.

Because the cost to file a UDRP is relatively inexpensive, many companies.

Try to "take" away a domain that way than pay market rate.

Since there are no penalties if the company loses, they have nothing to lose but the filing fee. Because of stupid, incompetent, or biased judge panelists,.

These companies sometimes succeed in getting the domain.

This just serves to embolden others to try the same.

More dangerous times ahead...I'm afraid.

Patrick..

Comment #37

Sorry to hear this Phil. Reading the decision it's not terrible. A single page usage isn't imho enough to protect a domain.

Also the archive.org look back doesn't bode well for you.

I advise domainers to add the tags to have archive.org deindex your sites. It's normally used against a person.

Add this to your robots.txt.

User-agent: ia_archiver.

Disallow: /.

And Phil...while I do understand why you are upset at losing the UDRP is losing the domain that big of a deal. You don't use it commercially and you never built up a site for it. Seems the panelists in their infinite wisdom believe that's a reason to lose a domain. Lastly I wonder if you had hired a lawyer would the outcome have been better for you?..

Comment #38

Amen, brother, amen. Yes. Whether the outcome was better because he won, or "better" because he knew he put forth the best defense possible; the draw-back, of course, is spending money on an attorney for a non-commercial domain looks somewhat disingenuous, no?.

-Allan..

Comment #39

I remember JB talking about a case where the owner de-indexed their site and this was used against them. Apparently not wanting your site to get indexed means you have something to hide... I don't believe it was the determining factor, but they definitely went out of their way to make a point of it.

So basically, if you do de-index your sites, I'd suggest making sure you do it with all of them, and have a prepared legitimate reason for doing so.

Its just a bit crazy trying to juggle all of the insanity...

Comment #40

I'm sorry to hear that Phil.

Here's an Idea: Go register CreamAbdulJabbar.com (It's available) and setup an anti-Fan site where people can play a game to throw Cream Pies at the WIPO and Kareem.

(this has been another lame attempt at humor).

Best wishes,.

Kimmy..

Comment #41

That got me chuckling, though, especially the cream part...

Comment #42

A legit reason is to prevent people from stealing old site information. Site copying is something that's a problem and I personally don't believe the use of archive.org is a benefit to me or my viewers. I do not profit from archive.org and I see no legitimate reason to allow them to archive my sites.

And yes it can look suspicious if AFTER a UDRP or contact you deindex. Best to also add the robots.txt to a few sites you have...

Comment #43

$$.

That is the answer.

I've had a long 2 weeks and still fuming. Unfortunately, my little girl has been sick for the past 2 weeks and haven't had a good night sleep at all. Haven;t even been able to play WOW. Just rying to keep my head above water here befoer I get my heart attack...

Comment #44

How did they find out he had his site deindexed?..

Comment #45

Easy... go to archive.org and see when they stopped archiving.....

Comment #46

Sorry but I don't understand. Can you provide with an example?.

Does archive.org says "on xx-xx-xxxx we stopped archiving" or you just mean that on some date it justs stops producing results? If it's the latter it can happen for all sorts of reasons...

Comment #47

Well ok, theres 2 ways. One is to view the source of the offending website, and look for a robot tag to noindex on archive.org (I forget the exact tag), and the second, once archive.org finds a site, it usually doesn't just randomly stop archiving (from what I know). So if there is all of a sudden a several month lapse in archives, it would appear to have been de-indexed...

Comment #48

The robot tag I think is to hard to prove.

Also archive.org is archiving whenever they feel like it. Maybe if there is no change they will not archive it. Also some domains are never archived. I have a lot like this...

Comment #49

Nope... If a site blocks archive.org, this happens:.

Robots.txt Query Exclusion.

We're sorry, access to http://www.________.com has been blocked by the site owner via robots.txt..

Read more about robots.txt.

See the site's robots.txt file..

Try another request or click here to search for all pages on _________.com/.

See the FAQs for more info and help, or contact us.

Unless they've archived the archive.org page.

-Allan..

Comment #50

Ok, a long awaited update and I'll try to cover as much as possible.

The site was never de-indexed. I have no idea where that nonsense came from. But my hosting company received a letter (they did not go into specifics) and all of my hosting was shut down. Every site I had was affected. They then tried to blackmail me into paying an outrageous amount of money to get them back up. This killed all my sites and email for me and my family.

There was never a link from the KAJ site to my personal website at vegasgamblers.INFO. I have no idea how he determined it. Go to achive.org and you will see there was never a link at any period at all. The panelist said there was. Go figure.

The supposed "link" on the KAJ was, in the determination of the incompetant panelist, was vegasgamblers.COM. This is a site that I have never been associated with. I never owned it or had any involvement with it (but it is funny that I tried several times to obtain it but the owner is a real dick). But the panelist found that I was a casino due to the link and advertising on the .com site, even though no link EVER existed. Check archive.org.

I brought the two to the attention to WIPo and they said "my bad, we'll change the the .com to the .info" and told me to basically pound salt. They never addressed the supposed "link" on the KAJ site. I did tell WIPO I will be looking for any type of link between the lawyer and the panelist.

My only option was federal court, I have no money for that. I contacted the ACLU, they didn't respond. I guess my cause is not worth fighting for them.

The panelist did not do his own investigation and most panelists do. Even when it was pointed out in the response. And this particular panelist usually does research and I've read some decisions (which went unresponded) where he did the research to support the complainants findings. He did not do it here, or he would have knon there was no link.

As I mentioned elsewhere, Vega$ Gambler$ is my internet persona in the field of fantasy sports. I am a charter member of the World Championship of Fantasy Baseball & Football and The National Fantasy Football Championships. I was part of the top fantasy sports group int he world. Additionally, I sponsered softball teams all under the name of Vega$ Gambler$ or just the Gamblers (sent them a picture from 1996 showing the "Gamblers" softball team. So Vega$ Gambler$ is not a casino, but a persona similar to the likes of any sports team. I submitted 15 pages of documents supporting this.

Now, the best part. I was contacted once and only once, in August 2007. Deborah Morales called and wanted the name. I repeatedly told her "I have no interest in getting rid of the domain". Then she submitted testimony she had been contacting me since 2004, but claimed she had no proof or phone records of it. The only thing she submitted when a phone log of August 2007 which shows our initial phone call of 10 min.

She only left me one message which I could not understand. The funny thing is, 2 calls on one day were within the same minute and another 3 phone calls on a different day were 1 minute apart. She was showing the number of "times" she tried contacting me. She then said I "demanded" 6000-10000 for the name. This is not true.

Tey, Never mentioined in his "findings".

I was previously contacted in 2002 aobut the domain which I also refused to sell. The representative finally gave in and sent me an email saying he gives up and even supplied me with pictures of Kareem to put onto the site. Unfortuantely, the computer I had this on blew up a couple years ago. I still ahve the harddrive and can't get informtion from it. This was submitted to the panelist.

The "panelist", in all his wisdom, threw out any unsupported contact claims and ruled I was contacted in 2004. That is a contradiction since the only support from them was from August 2007.

I can't believe the panelist did such a piss poor job in this matter and did not even mention any of my supported claims (which was about 30 pages). He had already decided that I was going to lose and went out of his way to make sure it happened. yes, I am calling it now "Shananigans". So basically, he made a decision about me over the vegasgamblers.com website (which I never owned, but wish I did) over a link that never existed from the KAJ website. He deemed me a casino and in the gambling industry. In fairness of full disclosure.

If you look on my site, it has Super Bowl 38 props on it, which btw is not the live sportsbook. Actually, if anyone checked any of my sites, I have not updated anything in many years. My PC blew up and never bothered to get office or frontpage up and running again since my now ex-wife owned my company and effectively drove all my customers away. If anyone recalls, I lost almost all of my domains through non-renewal and there was even a time where dnquest.com was expired for a month. Yeah, life keeps kicking you down.

Anyway, sorry for the long post, but as you can tell, I am pissed about this. But unless you have money, there is absolutely no justice for you. I will be honest, I was shocked I lost, but I guess the panelist will only disclose what they want at adn make make their determination seem like the correct call. Unless they disclose everything sent to them, you and I will never know the full story.

Yeah, I call people cybersquatters because they show causes to be called one. I try to be honest (sometimes brutally) and show why. At this point, I will have this grudge and be more obnoxious on how panelists can sway decision from not disclosing everything submitted to them. So it makes me wonder about previous decisions, whether there is more to the stories than the panelist lets on.

Forever jaded...Phil..

Comment #51

Wow... so basically WIPO said screw you, we won't listen...

Have you contacted ICANN at all? I for one would donate to your legal case if you wanted to proceed... I couldn't donate a lot but if you decide to set up a legal fund, let me know. I'm sure there are enough people here, if even 1/2 of 1% donated, it would go a long way...

Sorry to hear this... this is very disheartening...

Comment #52

Phil,.

Sorry to hear about this ludacris decision. Hopefully Karma comes round full circle for the Panelists.

Justin..

Comment #53

Phil,.

You understand that you would only need to come up with the money for the filing fee in federal court, right? You could draft your own pleadings, etc. Service should also not be a problem.

PS You may find this decision helpful: http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/...ON=01-1197.01A..

Comment #54

And just because there is a misconception that the filing fee is outrageous... $350.

What might be outrageous is that taxpayers foot a large part of most civil lawsuits http://www.uscourts.gov/faq.html.

-Allan..

Comment #55

I know from your posts, you are very careful and advise others against squatting. Sometimes they will find a chink in the armor. In this case I guess it was the alleged commercial sites listed that really hurt. It's just hard to win one against a name that big unless you have money or lawyers to defend it. Look at the nissan.com case. I think he's spend tons of money defending that domain.

If you want a little poetic justice, RichardGLyon.com is available. (the panelist). I'll bet he doesn't have a TM on his name. You could put up a legitimate free speech site refuting his decision if you really feel strongly about it...

Comment #56

And the sad part there were no links what so ever. If I did link them, then I deserve to lose. The 2 sites were never linked (the .info site, not the alleged .com site which the panelist used in his original decision which he based the commercial usage). I do try to help others as much as possible adn I do caution the side on being careful. I know first hand any little thing regardless (or irregardless) of how minor can hurt you. The evil side has crept up in me, and believe me, if I decided to act on it (I doubt I will because I am not a vindictive person), it will be really nasty....

But I would be pointing out everyone associated with this BS and show how much they "suck".

Thanx for the positive responses, as much as I would love to pursue this, there was never a monetary motivation, just personal pride. It is not worth me fighting, plus if I did I would want it done right. I am just damn sick and tired to continue...

Comment #57

Sorry Phil...this all sucks. Seems you got the shaft. This is why I have no qualms about gaming the system and the old adage that nice guys finish last rings true. I ain't a white knight and it doesn't pay to be right. As you can see...you would be better off lying your ass off. At this point do you regret not discussing money with them in the first place? You might have at least made $1000-$2500 from the name but now your out the name and aggravated the worst.

WIPO sucks. Any chance you can file and go after them over this? Sadly when we buy domains we agree to arbitration via UDRP. I wonder if you can sue directly WIPO over the matter. It's obvious by your post they have basically just screwed you. How about speaking to someone connected and getting this panelist booted?.

Yeah...any Justice would be nice but I have a suspicion that you won't be getting any. Well...I will rep ya for being a good guy though...

Comment #58

Thanx Jesse, I know I can hold my head high knowing what I thought was teh right thing. Money was never an issue, but looking back, I should have accepted the $6,000.00 offer I received several years ago. Hindsight is 20/20.

When I have time, I think some research is required and listing some findings in a place where people can see them... hmmm, what form of media would be great for people all over the world where they can arrive in a central location to learn about stuff?/ hmmm, man it "sucks" not knowing where I should vent.....

Comment #59

What is your cause of action going to be? That's like saying you don't like a judge's decision and you should be able to sue them. The sad fact in life is that arbitrators and judges are humans. They make mistakes, and sometimes, they let their personal biases control.

Our judicial system has never been set up about fairnessit allows and opportunity to have your voice heard. Case in point, take a look at when the Exxon case comes out. I've got a terrible "hunch" that Exxon is going to win this thing... That certainly isn't justice, but Exxon has successfully tied up their litigation for 19 years. Many of the affected people from the spill are now deceased.

If you have deep pockets, the justice system is weighed in your favor...

Comment #60

WIPO are not judges...you can sue cops and even prosecutors. I believe the cause would be neglect of duty. Certainly Phil has pointed out the few things that showed the errors of the panelist. The panelist has to act in good-faith of the process for both sides and in this case imho it wasn't done. Phil has good reason to be really pissed if what he says is true (I have no reason to disbelieve)...

Comment #61

I understand arbitrators are not judges, but they serve the same function. While you, Phil, and many others may believe the panelist did not act in good faith, the standard for proving the panelist breached such a duty (assuming there was one) would be difficult to prove. Furthermore, making a motion for the stay of the arbitration decision WAS the way to appeal. Phil chose not to do that, so while I am disappointed for Phil on the decision just as you are, I'd be surprised if a judge or jury is going to feel much sympathy since no appeal was filed...

Comment #62

How about a Fund Raiser here? (i would chip in something.....).

Cheers,.

Frank..

Comment #63

Maybe an email from WIPO stating the wrong website was referenced, but that doesn't change the fact there was never any links on the page in question.

When I have the time and motivation, I will try to scan every document from this. Haven't used my scanner in years.

Fonzie, to get the stay I would have to go to court. I am not able to go that route...

Comment #64

I undestand that, which is one of the reasons why our justice system's scales are tipped in favor of those who have deep pockets...

Comment #65


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.