| August 11, 2000 RE: WIPO - RFC on Domain Names to: process.mail@wipo.int WIPO Internet Domain Name Process World Intellectual Property Organization 34 chemin des Colombettes P.O. Box 18, 1211 Geneva 20 Switzerland Dear Sir or Madam, Attached are comments of the Consumer Project on Technology on the current WIPO Request for Comment on the Terms of Reference, Procedures and Timetable for the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process. (http://wipo2.wipo.int/process2/rfc/rfc1/index.html). Sincerely, James Love Director, Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org CPT Comments On Terms of Reference, Procedures and Timetable for the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process 1. csa-canada.com and csa-international.net http://arbiter.wipo.int/en/domains/decisions/html/d2000-0071.html CSA International (a.k.a. Canadian Standards Association) v. John O. Shannon and Care Tech Industries, Inc. In this case, a firm named Care Tech Industries sought to obtain certification of an ozone generator from the Canadian Standards Association (CSA). The CSA has a trademark on CSA and CSA International, and owns the domain CSA-International.org. Care Tech then registered csa-canada.com and csa-international.net, which it used to criticize CSA, for its decision not the certify the Care Tech production. According to the WIPO panel: Respondents maintain websites at each of these addresses. At each website, Respondents attack and criticise the Complainant and its staff in relation, inter alia, to its failure to certify Respondents' Odatus generator. The content of each site is substantially identical, and each directs viewers to see "our homepage". Following that link leads to the "odatus.com" homepage which includes promotion of the Odatus ozone generator. . . . they are not using the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and they do not claim to be commonly known by either of the domain names. Examination of Respondents' web pages clearly show that they are using their domain names to attract persons to their sites for the purpose of publicly attacking the Complainant and members of its staff and pleading its case in relation to a dispute between themselves and the Complainant in relation to a product which Respondents offer under the trade mark Odatus. Persons attracted to the site are likely to be persons seeking contact with Complainant, not persons seeking contact with Respondents. Respondents claim to rights and legitimate interests is essentially based on a claim to freedom of speech and, expression of opinion, but that right does not require the use of Complainant's trade marks in the domain names for that purpose. The WIPO panel concluded that Care Tech did not have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names, that they were registered and were used in bad faith, and ordered the domain names transferred to the Canadian Standards Organization. CPT Comment: 1. This decision was wrong. The right of a person or a firm to criticize a standards body or a government organization is a legitimate interest. There was no suggestion that the domains were used to confuse the public as to the identity of the CSA. 2. The use of the trademarked name in the domain name was appropriate, just as would be the use of the trademarked name in the title of a book or the title of a web page. As the decision notes, the web sites were clearly attacks on the CSA by an aggrieved party, and would not have been confused as an official CSA web page. 3. The fact that the interest of Care Tech was commercial did not mean that Care Tech did not have a legitimate free speech right to criticize the CSA. 2. DodgeViper.com http://arbiter.wipo.int/en/domains/decisions/html/d2000-0222.html This is a UDRP decision involving a web site, http://www.dodgeviper.com, which was run by a fan of Dodge Vipers, since 1996. Dodge had even provided a link to his site in one of the Dodge Viper magazines. Then the Dodge legal department went after the site. According to one observer, the panelist "found bad faith registration and bad faith use on literally no supportive facts." Comment: 1. Expansion of the TLD space could help address these problems, by creating TLDs such as .fans, .owners or .users. 2. There is a legitimate purpose in consumers creating web sites to discuss products. They should be permitted to use the name of the product in the domain name, so long as the web site doesn't purport to be an official company site. The dodgevipers.com site is clear that it is a fan site, and not a Dodge site. 3. The UDRP should reverse its decision in the dodgevipers.com case. 3. Crew.com http://arbiter.wipo.int/en/domains/decisions/html/d2000-0054.html This is the decision that gave J. Crew the rights to crew.com. Crew.com was registered by Telepathy, a speculator in domain names. It was not being used for a real web page. J. Crew tried to buy crew.com, but did not come to terms with Telepathy, and then used the UDRP to take it away. Crew is a generic word. J. Crew has apparently registered crew as a trademark. J. Crew also has jcrew.com for its web page. The MIT Dictionary Server gives quite a few definitions for Crew: Crew Crew (kr?), n. (Zo"ol.) The Manx shearwater. Crew Crew (kr?), n. From older accrue accession, reinforcement, hence, company, crew; the first syllable being misunderstood as the indefinite article. See Accrue, Crescent. 1. A company of people associated together; an assemblage; a throng. There a noble crew Of lords and ladies stood on every side. --Spenser. Faithful to whom? to thy rebellious crew? --Milton. 2. The company of seamen who man a ship, vessel, or at; the company belonging to a vessel or a boat. Note: The word crew, in law, is ordinarily used as equivalent to ship's company, including master and other officers. When the master and other officers are excluded, the context always shows it. --Story. Burrill. 3. In an extended sense, any small body of men associated for a purpose; a gang; as (Naut.), the carpenter's crew; the boatswain's crew. Syn: Company; band; gang; horde; mob; herd; throng; party. Crew Crew (kr?), imp. of Crow. Crow Crow (kr?), v. i. imp. Crew (kr?) or Crowed (kr?d); p. p. Crowed (Crown (kr?n), Obs.); p. pr. & vb. n. Crowing. AS. cr?wan; akin to D. kraijen, G. kr?hen, cf. Lith. groti to croak. root24. Cf. Crake. 1. To make the shrill sound characteristic of a cock, either in joy, gayety, or defiance. ``The cock had crown.'' --Bayron. The morning cock crew loud. --Shak. 2. To shout in exultation or defiance; to brag. 3. To utter a sound expressive of joy or pleasure. The sweetest little maid, That ever crowed for kisses. --Tennyson. To crow over, to exult over a vanquished antagonist. Sennacherib crowing over poor Jerusalem. --Bp. Hall. CPT agrees with the dissent by panel member G. Gervaise Davis III: We are not legislators, but arbitrators. The majority, in an effort to stop a practice that it seems to take upon itself to believe is an unstated purpose of the ICANN Policy, has completely over-stepped its mandate as arbitrators. The decision creates a new and unauthorized test out of whole cloth, based on assumptions of fact by arbitrators without evidence on the subject, instead of using the appropriate and carefully crafted three step test for required evidence set out by the ICANN Policy and Rules. In my judgment, the majority's decision prohibits conduct which was not intended to be regulated by the ICANN policy. This creates a dangerous and unauthorized situation whereby the registration and use of common generic words as domains can be prevented by trademark owners wishing to own their generic trademarks in gross. I cannot and will not agree to any such decision, which is fundamentally wrong. I respectfully dissent from the majority decision of my fellow professional panelists. CPT Comment: 1. The UDRP should not have given J. Crew the rights to crew.com. Crew is a generic word. J. Crew had registered jcrew.com, a domain name that was clearly different from crew.com. It is anticompetitive for the UDRP to take away domains based upon generic words to a company that has a different name. 4. Penguin.Org http://arbiter.wipo.int/en/domains/decisions/html/d2000-0204.html CPT agreed with this decision. Penguin Books Limited is a large publisher of paperback books, and the owner of penguin.com. Anthony Katz is known to his friends as "the Penguin." He had registered penguin.org He also appeared to have been very well represented in the WIPO proceeding. His side told the panel: i. Anthony Katz was known as "Penguin" long before said domain name was registered. ii. Mr Katz has made only two uses of the said domain name , firstly as a personal e-mail address and secondly as the address of a personal www site. [Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 1999 WL 635767 (9th Circuit. August 23, 1999), use of names a e-mail addresses does not constitute commercial use] iii. Mr Katz registered said domain name to establish a www site dedicated to penguins (the birds). [snip] xii. Mr Katz is not a cybersquatter: he is known as "Penguin"; he did not register the other domain names (registered August 24, 1998); (registered October 5, 1998) and (registered October 5, 1998) with the intention of re-sale. His circumstances can be distinguished from the position of the Respondent in Nabisco Brands Company v. The Patron Group, Inc. WIPO Case No. 2000-0032, February 23, 2000, David W. Plant, Presiding Panelist, as in that case the Respondent owned at least 53 domain names identical or virtually identical to registered U.S.A. trade marks of other companies such as Nestle, General Mills, Nabisco, AT&T, Pfizer, Proctor & Gamble and Warner-Lambert. In that case the Complainant established a continuous and obvious pattern of cybersquatting whereas Mr Katz registrations do not even remotely approach the pattern reviewed in Nabisco Brands. xviii. Hundreds, if not thousands of domain names have been registered in the name of families. It is not wrongful conduct so to do. xix. When registering a domain name, there is no obligation to disclose the nature of the entity identified as the registrant. There is no obligation under Texas law to register an alias of an individual or entity such as a partnership that does not conduct any business or commercial activities whatsoever. xx. There is no evidence that Mr Katz registered the domain name in the name of the Katz Family to conceal his identity, as the WHOIS database identifies him as the administrative contact and provides his e-mail address at his current place of employment. xxi. The word "Penguin" and the mascot character "Tux" have become irreversibly associated with the LINUX computer system. Accordingly there is no bad faith in Mr Katz electing to show his personal allegiance to the LINUX operating system by posting an image of Tux on his homepage. xxii. Non commercial sites often identify the software that underlie the site Mr Katz has elected to identify the LINUX software and he gives a number of examples of other sites that do this. In finding for Anthony Katz, who was permitted to keep penguin.org, the WIPO panel noted: "This Administrative Panel is reluctant to engage in the activity of policing how much development the owner of a clearly personal Web site must do, in the absence of any other evidence of bad faith. Any attempt to apply any objective minimum standards for development could well impose a significant economic burden on innocent registrants as a precondition of holding their domain names. CPT Comment: 1. WIPO was correct in permitting Anthony Katz to retain the use of Penguin.org. 2. There was nothing on the Penguin.org page that would lead one to believe that it was the publisher of Penguin Books. 3. There are many legitimate uses of the word Penguin, including, for example, web pages about Penguin birds or about Linux, software which uses Penguins as a mascott, not to mention Penguin sporting or social clubs. 4. An expansion of the TLD space, creating such TLDs as .books, .birds, software or other TLDs, would help avoid such disputes. 5. ICANN should not be in the business of deciding whether or not the Penguin domain should be used for the sale of books, for a site devoted to the Penguin birds, to promote sporting teams, for Linux software, or for personal use. These are all legitimate uses of the word Penguin. 6. In this case, it appears as though the respondent was well represented. CPT is concerned about cases where the respondent is not able to obtain effective representation. 5. Esquire.Com http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/93763.htm This is an arbitration decision that took away the domain esquire.com, and gave it to Hearst Magazines, the publisher of Esquire, the US mens magazine. There was apparently evidence that the original domain name holder, Mail.com, had plans to use this as a vanity email address. This is from the dissent in the opinion, written by Milton Mueller: "There is growing precedent within US law and within the UDRP that resale of domain names per se is not evidence of actionable bad faith. (See Avery Dennison Corp. v. Jerry Sumpton, D.C. Case No. CV-97-00407-JSL, Appeal No. 98-55810; General Machine Products Co., Inc v. Prime Domains NAF 0001000092531 re: craftwork.com, and Allocation Network GbmH v Steve Gregory, WIPO Case D2000-0016 re: allocation.com.) "Which leads to the issue of Mail.com's status in this proceeding. Respondents offered proof that Spencer sold the domain name to a party with a legitimate, non-infringing interest in the name. Mail.com provided evidence from 1997 - three years before this dispute - of plans to use the domain name as a vanity email address. Complainant Hearst offered no evidence or argumentation to challenge the intent or validity of this transaction. The Avery Dennison v. Sumpton precedent is directly applicable to this case, as the ruling specifically upholds the right of a domain name registrant to resell use of a domain name as a vanity address even when the character string of the second level domain name corresponds to someone's trademark. "I emphatically dissent from the majority opinion's statement that Mail.com's rights "are subject to whatever defects Spencer's claim may face." I find their contention that a subsequent permissible use cannot be considered as an important factor in this case to be insupportable. The majority panelists have decided - without any direct evidence - that Spencer's sole original intent was to sell the name to Esquire Magazine. When faced with the clear fact that Spencer sold the name to someone else, they say that this sale is invalid because of Spencer's imputed original intent. The argument is entirely circular, and has no validity. "The UDRP is intended to prevent trademark owners from being extorted by cybersquatters, but it is also intended to protect legitimate registrations from being threatened by overreaching trademark owners. A correct application of the spirit and letter of the UDRP gives each of these concerns equal weight. The majority opinion fails to balance these concerns. Absent any evidence that the original registrant was trading specifically on the value of the Esquire Magazine mark, I cannot conclude that the name was registered in bad faith. CPT Comment: 1. The Esquire.com decision should not have overlooked evidence of proposed legitimate uses of the Esquire.com domain name. In this, case, as a domain for personal email addresses. The registration of a trademark for the word Esquire in connection with the magazine does not prevent others from using the word Esquire for other legitimate uses, including, for example, as a personal email address. 2. If ICANN would expand the TLD space, to include such TLDs as magazine or even .esquire, it would not be necessary to choose between the use of Esquire as a personsal email domain and the name for the magazine publisher. 6. Walmartcanadasucks.com http://arbiter.wipo.int/en/domains/decisions/html/d2000-0477.html This is a decision that gave "walmartcanadasucks.com", "wal-martcanadasucks.com", "walmartuksucks.com", "walmartpuertorico.com" and "walmartpuertoricosucks.com" to Walmart. The decision said: Based on its finding that the Respondents, Walsucks and Walmarket Puerto Rico, have engaged in abusive registration of the domain names "wal-martcanadasucks.com", "wal-martcanadasucks.com", "walmartuksucks.com", "walmartpuertorico.com" and "walmartpuertoricosucks.com" within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel orders that the domain names "wal-martcanadasucks.com", "wal-martcanadasucks.com", "walmartuksucks.com", "walmartpuertorico.com" and "walmartpuertoricosucks.com" be transferred to the Complainant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Background: These domains were owned by Kenneth J. Harvey, a speculator in domain names. Acccording to the decision: The "walmartcanadasucks.com" and "walmartuksucks.com" web pages each state that "This is a freedom of information site set up for dissatisfied Walmart Canada [or UK, respectively] customers." Each site invites visitors to "Spill Your Guts" with a "horror story relating to your dealings with Wal-Mart Canada [or UK, respectively]". On the "walmartcanadasucks.com" website, Respondent has posted "Wal-Mart Horror Story #1" which recounts his version of events in respect to the "walmartcanada.com" domain name. Each website posts a photograph of Respondent, labeled "President", and Respondent's biography. Each "Spill Your Guts" page indicates "If we feel your story is interesting, it might be included in award-winning author Kenneth J. Harvey's forthcoming book - "Wal-MartCanadaSucks.com" [or, on UK page, "about Walmart"]". Walmark indicated these domains were registered in bad faith, and indicated: Respondents' free speech argument is a convenient and transparent dodge. It does not even make sense with respect to three of the domain names: WAL-MARTCANADASUCKS.COM, WALMARTPUERTORICOSUCKS.COM, and WALMARTPUERTORICO.COM. There are no websites attached to these domain names. Respondents offer no evidence to support a claim that they have made legitimate use of any of these three domain names. The arbitrator indicated: Respondent has appended the term "-sucks" to domain names that are, in the absence of that term, confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. The addition of the pejorative verb "sucks" is tantamount to creating the phrase "Wal-Mart Canada sucks" (and comparable phrases with Respondent's other "-sucks" formative domain names). The elimination of the spacing between the terms of the phrase is dictated by technical factors, and by the common practice of domain name registrants. The addition of a common or generic term following a trademark does not create a new or different mark in which Respondent has rights. The decision noted that: Respondent argues that addition of the word "sucks" to the base names "walmartcanada", "wal-martcanada", "walmartuk" and "walmartpuertorico" causes such names to lose their confusing similarity with Complainant's "Wal-Mart" trademark. Respondent contends that because an Internet user or consumer viewing a "-sucks" formative domain name would assume that Complainant is not the sponsor of or associated with a website identified by such address, Respondent's "-sucks" formative marks cannot be confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. In support of this argument, Respondent refers to Lucent Technologies, Inc., v. Lucentsucks.com, 95 F. Supp. 2d 528 (E.D.Vir. 2000). It is first important to note that the observations made by Judge Brinkema in the Lucentsucks.com opinion regarding the issue of confusing similarity are in the nature of dicta, since the court dismissed the action against defendant for lack of jurisdiction 10. Judge Brinkema's opinion in Lucentsucks.com, and one decision on which she relies, Bally Total Fitness v. Faber, 29 F. Supp. 2d 1161 (C.D. Cal. 1998), each lend some support to Respondent's position. However, both cases are distinguishable. This defense was rejected, however, and the WIPO panel found on behalf of Walmart, that various "sucks" domains were "confusingly similiar" to the Walmart trademarks. In Bally, the court granted summary judgment in favor of a defendant that used the "Bally" trademark on a web page, appending the word "sucks", to create a "ballysucks" web page. In that case, "ballysucks.com" was not registered and was not used as a second-level domain name. The principal issue was whether the defendant could lawfully express itself on its web page using the trademark "Bally" in combination with the word "sucks". The court held that since the "ballysucks" web page was devoted to critical commentary regarding Bally, and the defendant did not have a commercial purpose in maintaining the site, the defendant had a valid free speech interest in using Bally's mark. The court observed that even a "ballysucks.com" domain name might not constitute trademark infringement ("even if Faber did use the mark as part of a larger domain name, such as "ballysucks.com", this would not necessarily be a violation as a matter of law." 29 F. Supp., at 1165). It made this observation in the context of applying the Sleekcraft factors. In Bally, the court found the defendant's intent in establishing its "ballysucks" web page was to criticize the trademark holder, and this factor weighed heavily in favor of the defendant. In the present proceeding, Respondent's intent is different. In Lucentsucks.com, the court observed that "Defendant argues persuasively that the average consumer would not confuse lucentsucks.com with a web site sponsored by plaintiff" 11 . However, the court did not undertake any particularized analysis of the disputed domain name as compared with the plaintiff's trademark. Moreover, the court observed that: "A successful showing that lucentsucks.com is effective parody and/ or a cite [sic] for critical commentary would seriously undermine the requisite elements for the causes of action at issue in this case." 12 No such showing had been made by the defendant in Lucentsucks.com. The court was speaking in the abstract - and in dicta -- about a future case in which the trademark issues would be fully litigated. Even so, the court indicated that the defendant's intent in registering and using the disputed domain name would be an important element in determining whether cybersquatting had occurred. The Panel does not consider Lucentsucks.com to stand for the proposition that "-sucks" formative domain names are immune as a matter of law from scrutiny as being confusingly similar to trademarks to which they are appended. Each case must be considered on its merits. The Panel is not making any determination regarding the registrants and users of other "-sucks" formative domain names (such as "walmartsucks.com"). The record of this proceeding evidences that Respondent did not register "walmartcanadasucks.com" and his other "-sucks" names in order to express opinions or to seek the expression of opinion of others. The record indicates that his intention was to extract money from Complainant. An application of the Sleekcraft factors in another context involving Complainant's mark and the word "sucks" might produce a different result than that reached here. The Panel notes that use of a domain name confusingly similar to a mark may be justified by fair use or legitimate noncommercial use considerations, and that this may in other cases permit the use of "-sucks" formative names in free expression forums. Complainant has met the burden of proving that Respondent is the registrant of domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights, and it has thus established the first of the three elements necessary to a finding that Respondent has engaged in abusive domain name registration. CPT Comment: 1. Domain names with a trademark plus the term "sucks" are not confusingly similar to trademark. The term "sucks" is clearly a pejorative term, used for criticism and free speech. ICANN should not be in the business of preventing people from creating various "sucks" web pages. 7. Catmachines.com http://arbiter.wipo.int/en/domains/decisions/html/d2000-0275.html Roam the Planet had registered catmachines.com. Caterpillar was successful in taking catmachines.com away from Roam the Planet. According to the WIPO decision, Caterpillar had sales of $19 billion in 1999. (Bulldozers and other products). Caterpillar already had registered caterpillar.com and cat.com. It claimed that "catmachines" was "identical, or confusingly similar" to its trademark in caterpillar or cat. Roam the Planet, apparently a seller of domain names, complained that Caterpillar was engaged in "Reverse domain highjacking." Roam the Planet identified. "numerous legitimate domain uses" for a domain combining "cat" with "machines", such as CAT for Computer Aided Technologies, Cat (the animal) associated with machines (e.g. Littermaid), Category 5, CATscan, Center for Advanced Technology (CAT), Computed Axial Tomography (C.A.T.), Covert Action Teams (C.A.T.) and Catalog (abbreviation). Apparently undermining its case was the fact that Roam the Planet had tried to sell catmachines.com to Caterpillar for $9,000. WIPO transfered catmachines.com to Caterpillar. Interestingly, WIPO did not note that the domain catmachine.com is in use now, by a firm that designs web pages. CPT Comment: 1. Catmachines.com is not "identical or confusingly similar" to caterpillar. The owner the domain name did demonstrate that there were legitimate uses for the domain other than the one proposed by Caterpillar. 2. Ironically, the WIPO decision to give Caterpillar the domain catmachines.com creates a possible dispute involving the domain catmachine.com, which is clearly a bona fide use by someone other than Caterpillar. 8. Eurotrash.com http://www.eurotrash.com/Aboutus/News/domainDispute.html According to this URL, the current user of Eurotrash.com claims to have incurred expenses of more than $40 thousand to defend its domain names. CPT Comment: 1. This raises some questions about the costs imposed on domain name holders. 2. Eurotrash is a common slang term. I don't see how anyone could claim a "right" to use this in the .com space. 9. Scientologie.org http://arbiter.wipo.int/en/domains/decisions/html/d2000-0410.html Religious Technology Center v. Freie Zone E. V This is an interesting and complex dispute involving on the one hand, a group that owned the copyright to a book named Scientologie, and a religious organization that claimed a trademark on the word scientologie. The current domain name holder uses the domain to criticize the Church of Scientology, the owner of the trademark for Scientologie. WIPO rejected the request for a transfer, noting that the domain name holder's interest in criticizing the Church of Scientology was a legitimate use. CPT Comment: 1. The decision in the scientologie.org case was correct, and a good illustration of the need to protect the public's right to free speech and criticism. 10. bridgestone-firestone.net http://arbiter.wipo.int/en/domains/decisions/html/d2000-0190.html Bridgestone Firestone, Inc., Bridgestone/Firestone Research, Inc., and Bridgestone Corporation v. Jack Myers This is an important decision where WIPO upheld the right of a person to use bridgestone-firestone.net to criticize Bridgestone Firestone, which owned the domain bridgestone-firestone.com. The panel decision said: The question presented in this case is whether fair use and free speech are defenses to a claim for transfer of a domain name under the Policy. Under Paragraph 4 (c)(iii) of the Policy, noncommercial fair use is expressly made a defense, as noted above. Although free speech is not listed as one of the Policy's examples of a right or legitimate interest in a domain name, the list is not exclusive, and the Panel concludes that the exercise of free speech for criticism and commentary also demonstrates a right or legitimate interest in the domain name under Paragraph 4 (c)(iii). The Internet is above all a framework for global communication, and the right to free speech should be one of the foundations of Internet law. . . . For all of the foregoing reasons, the Panel decides that although the Domain Name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainants have rights, the Respondent has legitimate fair use and free speech rights and interests in respect of the Domain Name, and the Respondent has not registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. The Panel therefore denies the claim of the Complainants for transfer of the Domain Name. CPT Comment: 1. The panel decision was correct in affirming that criticism of a firm is a legitimate basis for using the company name in a domain name. 11. Evidence of Non-Confusion between .com, .net and .org domains. There are many WIPO UDRP decisions that take away .org, or .net sites because they are considered confusingly similar to existing .com sites. There are also .com sites taken away because they are considered similar to .org site. The following examples illustrate the these decisions are not necessary, and that the same name can be used by different organizations using different TLDs. abc.com ABC Television abc.org American Builders and Contractors nbc.com NBC Television nbc.org Northport Baptist Church Yale.com -- Yale Industrial Trucks Yale.edu - Yale University blue.com Blue Hypermedia Blue.org Blue Dot Blue.net Bluegrass Cellular Internet Services watch.com National Watch Exchange watch.org Koenig's International News: WorldWatchDaily watch.net i2x Media Internet.com The Internet Industry Portal Internet.net Internet Shopping Network fish.com A personal web page fish.org Discussion of fisheries management car.org California Association of Realtor car.net Car.Net An automobile portal cpa.com Ralphael & Associates, accountants cpt.net Dietrich and Wilson, accountants mpaa.net Michigan Patent Accounting Association mpaa.org Motion Picture Association of America WTO.com Wolf Technologies Online wto.int World Trade Organization baseball.com Baseball.com baseball portal baseball.net Baseball shopping network baseball.org Tribute to Erich Maria Remarque att.com AT&T Global Network Services att.net AT&T Worldnet Service att.org Associated Talmud Torahs -- =======================================================
James Love, Director | http://www.cptech.org Consumer Project on Technology | mailto:love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367 | voice: 1.202.387.8030 Washington, DC 20036 | fax: 1.202.234.5176
=======================================================
|