United States: Balancing GDPR Rights And TM Owner Need For Domain Data

Trademark law serves two purposes. It protects the consuming public from confusion and counterfeits, as well as a brand owner's investment in valuable brand names. Brand owners must police their brands against likely confusion or risk losing them. Given the volume of trademark infringement that the internet enables, brand owners require options other than expensive litigation to protect their brands and the public from online confusion.

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy is an effective and low-cost alternative in cases in which a domain name itself infringes a trademark. But where the UDRP is not available, online brand enforcement presents significant challenges. 

Domain name WHOIS records play a critical role in brand owners' enforcement efforts. Viewing domains as property, WHOIS records reflect ownership and provide a variety of domain name information, such as the creation and expiration date, the last time the WHOIS record was updated and the registrar. Among the most important data are the domain owner's registrant, administrative and technical contact information. If the domain registrant uses a privacy service to conceal its personal information, that information is also reflected.

On May 25, 2018, the European General Data Protection Regulation became effective. Broadly speaking, the GDPR aims to protect European Union residents from privacy breaches and data thefts. GDPR limits access to personal information of EU residents and requires affirmative consent before such information may be revealed. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the nonprofit organization that coordinates the allocation of domain name addresses on the Internet, adopted an interim measure, the Temporary Specification for Generic Top-Level Domain Registration Data,1 to bring existing WHOIS data collection obligations in line with the requirements of the GDPR.

Critically for brand owners, where domain name registration data has been redacted due to the GDPR, Section 4.3 of the temporary specification provides that users with a "legitimate and proportionate purpose" can request access to it. Enumerated "legitimate purposes" in Section 4.4 include "supporting a framework to address issues involving domain name registrations, including but not limited to: consumer protection, investigation of cybercrime, DNS abuse, and intellectual property protection" and "coordinating dispute resolution services" related to domain names, i.e., UDRP, URS, etc. 

Unfortunately, the language of Sections 4.3 and 4.4 is vague, and questions about how exactly brand owners can reliably access needed WHOIS contact information remain unanswered.

The Generic Names Supporting Organization has undertaken a policy development process (the Expedited Policy Development Process) to confirm, amend or reject the temporary specification as a consensus policy, hoping to provide clarity and increase legal certainty regarding, among other things, how and under what circumstances redacted WHOIS contact information may be accessed. 

On Feb. 20, the EPDP team issued its final report on phase one of its work that included recommendations regarding the requirements related to such access.2 While these recommendations provide some clarity, they leave it to registrars and registries to create their own individual processes for submitting requests for lawful WHOIS data disclosure. In phase two, the EPDP team will make recommendations regarding a standard model for lawful disclosure of nonpublic WHOIS data (including whether a standard model should be adopted at all).3

The GDPR's impact on online brand enforcement and the WHOIS system in particular has been significant. Domain name registrant contact information that was previously available is now often redacted completely. To acquire that information, brand owners must rely on the ability of registrars and privacy services to properly balance the privacy interests of domain owners with the need for legal enforcement of intellectual property rights. Ideally, the EPDP team will find a solution that fairly and reliably accommodates both. Unfortunately, the challenges brand owners have faced with online brand enforcement even before the GDPR suggest that many important stakeholders in this field may not view brand owners' efforts to protect the public from online confusion as a "legitimate purpose" or fully appreciate the importance of WHOIS in combatting trademark infringement.4

The Value of WHOIS

WHOIS records are often among the first resources brand owners consult when confronted with online intellectual property violations. Whether contemplating a UDRP complaint or other brand-enforcement strategies, WHOIS contact information has been a key resource. 

WHOIS and the UDRP

One benefit of a UDRP complaint is that brand owners do not need the domain name's contact information to file a complaint. Nonetheless, WHOIS information plays a critical role in a UDRP proceeding. 

A successful UDRP complainant must establish each of the following elements: (1) the disputed domain is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's trademark or service mark; (2) the domain name registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain; and (3) the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.

When a prospective complainant evaluates its likelihood of success, element two is the most uncertain because evidence of a domain name registrant's rights may reside with the registrant only. Other than the domain name's resolving website (which often does not provide contact information), WHOIS records may be the only clue a brand owner has about the registrant's potential rights. Most obviously, if the WHOIS record indicates that the domain name reflects the registrant's personal or business name, a brand owner must research further to determine whether the WHOIS reflects a legitimate interest or merely a fraudulent ploy to protect a bad-faith registration.5

Where the registrant's contact information is unavailable, a brand owner must weigh the risk that when the domain registrant is revealed, a legitimate interest may also be revealed that could require withdrawing the complaint. Notably, if the registrant files a response asserting reverse domain name hijacking, a complainant may not be able to unilaterally withdraw from the proceeding.6 Further, if a UDRP panelist believes that a complainant could and should have known about the registrant's rights in the domain name, the panelist may find the complaint was brought in bad faith.7

Historical WHOIS records can save a UDRP complaint that would otherwise fail. The UDRP is written in the conjunctive, requiring complainants to establish that a domain name was both registered and used in bad faith.8 If a registrant acquired the domain name before the brand owner acquired rights in its asserted trademark, the UDRP is unavailable, because the domain could not have been registered with a bad-faith intent to profit from subsequently created trademark rights. 

Before filing a UDRP complaint, therefore, brand owners must first consult the WHOIS record to determine the disputed domain name's creation date. In a UDRP, the creation date is the presumptive date the registrant acquired the domain, unless it can be shown otherwise. Services like those offered by DomainTools LLC allow brand owners to research a domain name's WHOIS history to help determine whether the current domain registrant is the original registrant. If not, and the current registrant acquired the domain after the brand owner's trademark rights accrued, a UDRP may be viable.9

Additionally, one infringing domain name may be only the tip of the bad-faith iceberg. Where WHOIS contact information is available, brand owners can research other domains held by the same registrant that might also be assailable. Evidence of multiple domain names targeting a brand is strong evidence of a registrant's bad-faith intent. Such research also allows brand owners to combine all such domain names into one UDRP complaint, rather than having to file multiple complaints and incur additional filing fees as each domain becomes known. 

WHOIS and Non-UDRP Brand Enforcement 

Where WHOIS information is unavailable, enforcement options include contacting the registrant's registrar and/or privacy protection service to learn the contact information or the ISP host to have the website services shut down. These options, however, are not without challenges.

Even where it is available, WHOIS contact information can be fraudulent. If the WHOIS contact information is false, brand owners can submit a complaint to ICANN.10 ICANN will forward the complaint to the domain name registrar, who must then take reasonable steps to investigate and correct it. Where false contact information is not corrected, registrars may cancel the registration.

Further, in cases of fraud or phishing, contacting the domain owner directly or indirectly through ICANN can itself have value. Once a fraudster knows a brand owner is pursuing them, they may be more likely to move on.

Where WHOIS contact information is unavailable, brand owners can send demand letters to the registrar and/or privacy service seeking the underlying contact information, but success is not assured. Where privacy services are used, registrars may provide the privacy service's contact information only. Further, some registrars and privacy services refuse to reveal any underlying contact information without a court order. Still other privacy services claim they will only forward a brand owner's complaint to the domain name registrant. The registrant, of course, is under no obligation to respond, leaving a brand owner with no further information and no way of knowing if its complaint ever even made it to the underlying registrant.

Alternatively, brand owners may contact the domain name's internet service provider host, requesting that the domain name's email and/or website services be terminated. In general, ISP hosts located in the U.S. are more responsive than those located abroad, but even in the U.S., responsiveness is not assured. Further, some ISP hosts lease their hosting services to others (who may, in turn, re-lease them to further unidentified third parties). In other words, though researching a domain name's ISP address may lead to an ISP host, that host may not, in fact, be the entity actually providing the hosting services.

A Patchwork of Approaches to WHOIS Records

In the absence of clear legal guidance, registrars have interpreted their obligations under the GDPR differently. A limited few, like GoDaddy Inc., only redact the information of domain name registrants located inside the EU. Others redact all contact information for all registrants. EPAG, a German registrar (part of Tucows Group), announced that it would not even collect, much less display, administrative and technical domain name contact information, believing that doing so violates the GDPR. 

In response, ICANN filed an injunction in 2018 asking a German court to compel EPAG to collect this information. The Regional Court of Bonn held in favor of EPAG, finding that collecting this data would violate Article 5 of the GDPR, the data minimization rule, which states that personal data collection shall be "for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes," as well as "adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed." ICANN has appealed the decision several times, to no avail.11

At minimum, the GDPR has provided registrars, privacy services and ISP hosts further justification for refusing to comply with demand letters and given fraudsters a further layer of anonymity. In the absence of clear guidance, more registrars and privacy services will likely adopt the most restrictive policies possible (requiring court orders before providing contact information) to protect themselves from liability under the GDPR.

Confusion Among Decision Makers

The GDPR and temporary specification require registrars to engage in a balancing test that weighs the privacy interests of the domain name registrant against the asserted "legitimate purposes" of brand owners. Absent a clear policy process for doing so, the landscape described above gives brand owners reason to doubt the judgment of those not familiar with trademark law. Even key decision makers sometimes do not understand the challenges involved in acquiring domain name contact information or display more confidence than may be warranted in registrars' abilities to fairly balance the competing interests.

In a recent UDRP proceeding, the complainant tried to establish that the current registrant of the disputed domain name acquired it later than the domain's creation date. The complainant submitted evidence that the website had changed several times over the domain's life and that the WHOIS record indicated it had been recently updated. The UDRP panelist rejected the complainant's argument stating: 

It is not clear why the Registrar cannot provide information about the date the Respondent first became the registrant. It is, to say the least, highly regrettable in this case. One might expect that information is part of rudimentary customer relations and good data management practice, if nothing else.12

In this case, once the domain name owner was revealed in the course of the UDRP proceeding, the complainant could have consulted the WHOIS history at DomainTools and learned with greater specificity the chain of ownership. But for the reasons discussed above, the fact that the registrar did not readily provide such information is hardly surprising. In some UDRP cases, the underlying registrant is never revealed.13 Further, the longer WHOIS contact information remains redacted in response to the GDPR, a useful WHOIS history will become increasingly unavailable.

Similarly, the privacy concerns raised in a case brought by Domain Name Commission Limited against DomainTools is also illuminating. DNCL, the New Zealand entity the regulates the use of .nz for domain names, alleged that the way DomainTools accessed, stored and used .nz domain and registrant information breached its terms of use. The GDPR was not at issue, but similar privacy concerns featured strongly in the court's opinion granting DNCL's motion for a preliminary injunction. 

A likely harm that DNCL claimed it would suffer if an injunction did not issue was its inability to guarantee increased privacy for its customers' personal contact information. The district court agreed. Further, the court dismissed DomainTool's argument that its services provide critical cybersecurity resources to government, financial and law enforcement entities that would be harmed if the .nz data were removed. Weighing the competing interests, the court found that DomainTools' "customers can access the registration information directly through DNCL's website if it appears that a bad actor is using an .nz domain.'"

"On the other hand," the court continued, "the .nz registrants' privacy and security interests are compromised as long as defendant is publishing noncurrent or historical .nz information out of its database."14 On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed, stating: "Although the district court was presented with evidence that DomainTools' services are used by law enforcement and cybersecurity professionals to safeguard the public, there was also evidence that such professionals could access this type of information through alternate channels."15

Here, Ninth Circuit courts apparently refer to DNCL's policy that allows an organization to obtain authorized access to withheld WHOIS information when they can demonstrate a "legitimate need."16 Like the GDPR, such a policy sounds reasonable in theory, but as discussed, such policies are open to interpretation and may be inconsistently applied. 

Further, what a registrar deems "legitimate" may also depend on its understanding of the legal violation at issue. In our experience dealing with a variety of online platforms, demand letters asserting allegations of fraud or counterfeiting (which may involve criminal liability) typically have a higher rate of success, while allegations of trademark infringement (which have no statutory provisions specifically outlining an online platform's duties to respond) have the lowest. Fraud may reasonably be deemed a more serious legal violation, but trademark infringement is serious also, potentially jeopardizing valuable brands and causing consumer confusion.

Conclusion

Brand owners may be legitimately concerned that registrars may unfairly balance their trademark interests against the privacy interests of website operators. Clear guidance and detailed procedures regarding how such entities should respond to trademark complaints is crucial. An opportunity exists for the EPDP team to create a standard model for GDPR compliance that reduces uncertainty and provides a clear and reliable process outlining registrars' duties to respond to legitimate requests for WHOIS data where trademark rights are at stake. Let us hope they do so.

Footnotes

1. See https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gtld-registration-data-specs-en.

2. See Final Report at 18-19, Recommendation #18 (available at https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtldregistration-data-specs-final-20feb19-en.pdf). The ICANN Board adopted most of these recommendations on May 15, 2019. See https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/prelim-report-2019-05-15-en#1.b.

3. See http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/804758/data+protection/ICANN+Updates+Access+To+Domain+Name+Registrant+Data+PostBlackout.

4. As early as May 30, 2018, the Government Advisory Committee expressed its concerns to ICANN that the Temporary Specification effect on the WHOIS system "risks hindering the efforts of law enforcement, intellectual property and other actors in combatting illicit activities and mitigating DNS abuse." See https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-sanjuan61-gac-advice-scorecard-30may18-en.pdf. It reiterated on March 14, 2019 that "[t]he GAC has consistently advised on the necessity of finding a swift solution to ensuring timely access to non-public registration data for legitimate third party purposes that complies with the requirements of the GDPR and other data protection and privacy laws, in view of the significant negative impact of the changes in WHOIS accessibility on users with legitimate purposes." See https://gac.icann.org/content-generic-migrated/public/icann64%20gac%20communique%CC%81.pdf.

5. See, e.g., Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Giant Eagle/Giant Eagle Inc. , Case No. FA1410001586562 (NAF Dec. 6, 2014) ("The WHOIS information lists 'Giant Eagle' of 'Giant Eagle Inc' as the registrant. Nevertheless, there is no evidence of any outside association between Respondent and the 'Giant Eagle Inc' name beyond Respondent's own self-serving association.");

6. See Thomas Wang v. Privacydotlink Customer 546846 / Blue Nova Inc., Case No. D2018-1316 (WIPO Aug. 27, 2018). 

7. A UDRP complaint brought in bad faith is known as reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH). See generally WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, ¶ 4.16 (citing "clear knowledge of respondent rights or legitimate interests" as a reason panelists find RDNH). 

8. See Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) (available at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en). 

9. See, e.g., Ricochet Productions Limited v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, Case No. FA1904001838662 (NAF May 13, 2019) ("Here, Complainant provides the historical WHOIS information to show that the registration information changed multiple times after the initial registration, concluding with the final change to the current WHOIS information on August 13, 2018. Respondent did not acquire the domain name until August 13, 2018. The Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.").

10. See https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-form. 

11. See https://www.cyberlaws.it/en/2019/icann-v-epag-the-first-decision-applying-the-gdpr-confirms-whois-privacy-shortcomings/. 

12. William Samy Etienne Grigahcine v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0144192186 / Bradley Merchant, Case No. D2019-0114 (WIPO Mar. 15, 2019).

13. See, e.g., Opportunity Financial, LLC v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., Case No. FA190800185737 (NAF Sept. 13, 2019). 

14. See Domain Name Commission Ltd. v. DomainTools, LLC , No. 2:18-cv-00874-RSL (W.D. Wash. Sept. 12, 2018).

15. Domain Name Commission Ltd. v. DomainTools, LLC, No. 18-35850 (9th Cir. July 17, 2019) (not for publication).

16. See Domain Name Commission Ltd. v. DomainTools, LLC, No. 2:18-cv-00874-RSL, Dkt. 4 at ¶¶ 44-45 (W.D. Wash. June 15, 2018); see also https://www.dnc.org.nz/resource-library/policies/1479.

Originally Publish by Law360

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions