Published on

Zille Str. 69, 10575
939 61ST STREET, SUITE #13
OAKLAND, CA 94608-1301

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide


  1. 1. 1 Mattaniah Eytan (State Bar No. 68561) Eric Schenk (State Bar No. 100193) 2 LAW OFFICES OF MATTANIAH EYTAN 21 Tamal Vista Blvd., Suite 219 3 Corte Madera, CA 94925 4 Counsel for plaintiff Gerard Angé; in his individual capacity and as assignee forWorld Indigenous Network Corporation; and 5 G.A.P. International 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA – UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION 9 GERARD ANGÉ, an individual, etc. ) Case No. RG0 5241337 ) 10 Plaintiff, ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & ) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 11 v. ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY ) ADJUDICATION AS TO THE 12 ANTHONY TEMPLER et al. ) ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION ) 13 Defendants. ) Date: ) Time: 14 ) Dept: ) 15 And Related Cross-complaints. ) Trial Date: August , 2007 ) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Mem P&A’s re MSA F:ANGEMSAmem p&a.wpd
  2. 2. 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 This case, in relevant part, involves a dispute over the right to a particular internet 3 domain name: The dispute is between G.A.P. International, Inc.(“G.A.P. 4 CA”), a California corporation that provides satellite hookups for transmission of live events 5 and GAP International, Inc.(“GAP PA”) , a Pennsylvania corporation, that provides consulting 6 services and motivation programs for businesses. 7 G.A.P. CA acquired and began using the domain name, in January 8 2000.2 It had put up a website with that web address consisting of numerous pages explaining its 9 business and services.3 In 2003, GAP PA became interested in acquiring the rights to the domain 10 name.4 It contacted the company hosting the G.A.P. CA website, Atanda, a sole proprietorship 11 owned by Anthony Templer, and proceeded to purchase the domain name from Templer despite 12 the fact that GAP PA was on notice that Templer could not possibly be the legitimate owner of 13 the domain name. Since that time, GAP PA has refused G.A.P. CA’s demand that it return the 14 stolen domain name, compelling G.A.P. CA’s principal, Gerard Angé to bring this lawsuit. 15 The Eleventh Cause of Action in the Complaint seeks declaratory relief as to the right to 16 ownership and control of the domain name. G.A.P. CA’s right to the domain name rests on the 17 undisputed material facts that the domain name was embezzled by defendant Anthony Templer 18 19 1 A primer on the workings of the internet and the nature of “domain names” (as well as the impact of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, codified as 15 USC §§ 1125, 20 1127) is set out in Background section of Sporty’s Farm LLC v. Sportsman’S Market, Inc. (2d 21 Cir. 2000) 202 F.3d 489, 492 – 496. That section of Sporty’s Farm LLC is attached to this memorandum as a reference. 22 2 Declaration of Gerard Angé (“Angé Dec”) at paragraph 2. 23 3 Angé Dec at paragraph 12 and, e.g., Exhibit D. 24 4 The references in this paragraph to GAP PA’s conduct are taken from the Deposition 25 of Jon Greenawalt (“Greenawalt Dep”) See discussion in the Factual Background section that follows for the specific citations to supporting evidence. The relevant pages of the Greenawalt 26 Dep are attached as Exhibit D to the Declaration of Eric Schenk (“Schenk Dec”) . Mem P&A’s re MSA 1 F:ANGEMSAmem p&a.wpd
  3. 3. 1 dba Atanda Web Hosting; and then GAP PA, having notice that Templer was not the legitimate 2 owner, purchased the rights to the domain name from Templer. 3 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 4 A. G.A.P. CA acquires domain name in 2000. 5 Gerard Angé incorporated a company, Gerard Angé Productions International, Inc. as a 6 California corporation in September 2000.5 For obvious reasons, the company was commonly 7 known as G.A.P. International (“G.A.P. CA”) and was identified as such on its stationery and on 8 the website it acquired.6 Prior to incorporation, in January 2000, Angé, registered the domain 9 name, for G.A.P. CA through a webhosting company, Quickbooks.7 10 QuickBooks obtained the domain name for G.A.P. CA via the registry Melbourne IT, a company 11 headquartered in Melbourne, Australia.8 12 B. G.A.P. CA hires Templer to host the website. 13 In March 2002, QuickBooks informed G.A.P. CA that it (QuickBooks) would no longer 14 be providing webhosting services and instructed G.A.P. CA to arrange for some other company 15 to takeover those services for G.A.P. CA.9 Angé learned that Anthony Templer provided 16 webhosting services along with other website-related services and contracted with Templer dba 17 Atanda Web Presence Services to take over webhosting for the domain on 18 behalf of G.A.P. CA.10 19 20 5 Angé Dec, at paragraph 3 and Exhibit B. 21 6 See Angé Dec at Exhibits C and D. 22 7 Id. at paragraph 2 and Exhibit A. 23 8 See Angé Dec at paragraph 4. 24 9 Ibid. 25 10 Id. at paragraph 4 and 5 and Deposition of Anthony Templer attached as Exhibit C to 26 Schenk Dec (“Templer Depo”) at 5:23 – 53:11 and corresponding Exhibit 3. Mem P&A’s re MSA 2 F:ANGEMSAmem p&a.wpd
  4. 4. 1 C. Templer embezzles rights to domain name in 2002. 2 In April 2002, Templer obtained the codes from G.A.P. CA for the sole purpose of 3 allowing Templer to take over webhosting from Quickbooks.11 Ange never suggested to 4 Templer that Angé or G.A.P. CA was transferring any sort of ownership interest or rights in the 5 domain name to Templer or Atanda and Templer never suggested to Angé 6 or G.A.P. CA that he (Templer ) believed or understood that Angé or G.A.P. CA intended to 7 transfer any rights in the domain name to Templer or Atanda.12 As far as 8 G.A.P. CA knew, the administrative contact for the domain name remained “Gerard Angé.”13 9 Templer apparently had an arrangement with another registry company, Tucows, to serve 10 as a domain name reseller.14 Accordingly, at the end of January 2003, prior to the expiration of 11 G.A.P. CA’s the registration of domain name through Melbourne IT, 12 Templer arranged to have renew the registration of the domain name and have it registered with 13 Tucows.15 Templer understood that Angé was to remain the registrant for the 14 domain name even after the transfer and acknowledged that in renewing 15 the rights to the domain name, he purportedly retained Angé as the 16 registrant..16 Templer paid ten dollars to transfer the domain name registration and intended to 17 charge Angé twenty five dollars regarding the re-registration of But 18 19 11 Angé Dec at paragraph 6 . 20 12 Id. at paragraph 11. 21 13 Id. at paragraphs 7 and 8 and reference to Exhibit D. 22 14 Templer Depo at 92:25 – 93:11. 23 15 Id. at 92:12 – 21, 103:10 – 105:13, 107:1 – 109:12 and corresponding Exhibits 27 and 24 29. 25 16 Id. at 108:22 – 109:12. 26 17 Id. at 104:23 – 105:13. Mem P&A’s re MSA 3 F:ANGEMSAmem p&a.wpd
  5. 5. 1 there is no invoice that specifically references this charge.18 2 3 D. GAP PA, interested in buying the domain name, learns that it is associated with G.A.P. CA and that Templer hosts the website for G.A.P. CA. 4 5 Meanwhile, on the east coast, there was a company headquartered near Philadelphia 6 incorporated under Pennsylvania law as GAP International, Inc. (“GAP PA”).19 In around the 7 fall of 2003, Jon Greenawalt in GAP PA’s marketing department began investigating whether 8 GAP PA could obtain the domain name Greenawalt typed in the domain 9 name into his computer and arrived at G.A.P. CA’s website. The “entry” 10 page at the website identified the enterprise as G.A.P. International Broadcast Services Division. 11 The page states: 12 Welcome to The G.A.P. INTERNATIONAL website providing the following television & satellite services: 13 THE GAP SATELLITE NETWORK 14 Providing a world-wide Television Solution via a secure “conditional access” Digital Platform for Private Businesses and Entertainment Television. 15 THE GAP BROADCAST SERVICES DIVISION 16 Provider of Liver Television Production Services, Satellite Broadcasting Services, Webcasting and Extreme Webcasting Services World-Wide.21 17 18 At the bottom of that page, Atanda Web Presence Services was listed as the company 19 20 21 18 22 See Exhibits 15 and 45 to Templer Depo. By comparison, when Templer complained to Angé about not being paid the twenty five dollar “out of pocket” cost for re-registration of the 23 domain name, Angé paid it. See Exhibits 36 and 38 to Templer Depo. 24 19 See GAP PA’s Counterclaims, at paragraph 7. 25 20 Greenawalt Depo at 17:5 – 16. 26 21 Id. at 17:18 – 25:22 and Angé Dec at paragraph 14 and corresponding Exhibit E. Mem P&A’s re MSA 4 F:ANGEMSAmem p&a.wpd
  6. 6. 1 providing web hosting services.22 The website consisted of numerous web pages describing the 2 various services that G.A.P. CA could provide and listing numerous contacts.23 The contact 3 numbers and email addresses provided read as follows: 4 G.A.P. INTERNATIONAL P.O. Box 4110, San Rafael, CA 94913 5 USA 6 Booking: (800) 334-7782 Fax: (415) 388-7768 7 The GAP Satellite Network 24 HR Access (877) 597-1999 8 9 email: 10 Network Booking 11 Phone: 1(415) 388-7785 12 Fax: (415) 388-7768 13 Email: info@gapinternational.com24 14 E. GAP PA arranges to buy domain name from likely cybersquatter. 15 Greenawalt claims that he attempted to telephone all of the listed numbers without 16 reaching anyone. He claims that at that point, after waiting about two months, he then did some 17 research and obtained contact information for Atanda, Templer’s company.25 In fact, GAP PA 18 visited Atanda’s website to investigate what business Atanda was in.26 That website stated that 19 Atanda was engaged in the business of web hosting, web design, web development, web 20 22 21 Id. at 31:22 – 32:2 and Angé Dec at paragraph 14 and corresponding Exhibit E . 23 22 Greenawalt has no recollection of what he saw when he visited the website other than that there was an “entry” page of some sort with numerous hyperlinks including a “Contact Us” 23 link. See Greenawalt Depo at 21:16 – 25:22 and corresponding Exhibit G-5. 24 24 Greenawalt Depo 17:18 – 18:6, 21:16 – 23:7 and page 9 of Exhibit G5. 25 25 Id. at 29:20 – 24. 26 26 Id. at 45:17 – 19. Mem P&A’s re MSA 5 F:ANGEMSAmem p&a.wpd
  7. 7. 1 mastering and web name registration.27 Other than the fact that Atanda was listed as the owner 2 of the domain name, GAP PA, despite its investigation, did not find any 3 evidence that Atanda had any legitimate use for the domain name On 4 October 17, 2003, Greenawalt sent an email to the following email addresses: 5,,, and 6 inquiring about the availability of the domain name.29 These emails 7 establish that GAP PA was aware that a domain name existed for 8 Angé had no desire to sell the domain name and so ignored Greenawalt’s email.30 But 9 Templer responded to the email directed to his email addresses, and 10 , stating that he was willing to sell the domain name 11 to GAP PA. GAP PA knew at the time about “cybersquatting,” which it understood to be 12 “people who purchase domains for the reason no other than to sit on them and sell them.”31 And 13 GAP PA knew of no possible commercial connection between Atanda and the domain name 14 The only apparent connection was the fact that Atanda was listed as 15 providing web hosting services for the G.A.P. CA website. In other words, GAP PA was on 16 notice that Templer was in the perfect position to embezzle the rights to the domain name. 17 Nonetheless, GAP PA agreed to purchase the domain name, along with another domain name, 18, from Templer for a total price of $12,500. No one at G.A.P. CA was 19 consulted on or approved of this sale. The sale was completed on or about November 18, 2003. 20 27 21 Schenk Dec; Exhibit , Atanda Web Presence Services website entry page. 28 22 Greenawalt depo at 42:1 – 46:14. 23 29 Id. at 27:9 – 29:9 and corresponding Exhibit G-6. 24 30 Angé Dec at paragraphs 13 and 14. 25 31 Greenawalt Depo at 31:12 – 15. 26 32 Id. at 31:22 – 32:8. Mem P&A’s re MSA 6 F:ANGEMSAmem p&a.wpd
  8. 8. 1 Within a few days, Angé discovered that his email service was down and his website 2 was gone.33 After doing some investigating, he learned that the domain 3 name was now controlled by GAP PA.34 On December 5, 2003, Angé telephoned Greenawalt 4 and heatedly informed Greenawalt that G.A.P. CA was the owner of the 5 domain name and demanded it back. Greenawalt hung up on Angé.35 6 After getting off the telephone with Angé, Greenawalt sent Templer the following email: 7 The so-called president of G.A.P. International called me today furious, saying that we bought “stolen property.” He says that you sold the domain 8 without his consent. He says that he owns the domain and that you were just his “web guy.” Do we have a problem here? Please contact 9 me ASAP so that we can resolve this issue.36 10 In other words, GAP PA had received from a business with a legitimate reason to have 11 the domain name the only logical explanation for the facts surrounding 12 Atanda’s being in “control” of a domain name unrelated to any business activity Atanda 13 conducted. GAP PA admitted in its email to Templer that there was an “issue” that had to be 14 “resolved,” i.e., who legitimately owned at the time GAP PA bought it. 15 Templer then responded by informing GAP PA that, in fact, Atanda had “acquired” the 16 domain name only in connection with services that it was to provide 17 G.A.P. CA and Atanda’s, on its own, had no legitimate commercial interest in that domain name: 18 No, we don’t have a problem here. I was the official owner of the registration of prior to my selling to to your company. Gerard Angé did 19 contract with my company for services using that domain name several years ago. At the time that we began providing him with service, he had let the domain name 20 lapse and we had to take action in order to acquire the domain name. Having been forewarned of possible fiscal problems, we made sure that the actual 21 ownership was in our name. . . . Before I completed the sale to your company, I made a final effort to deliver, via registered mail, a demand letter giving him 22 23 33 Angé Dec at paragraph 16. 24 34 Ibid. 25 35 Id. at paragraph 17. 26 36 Exhibit G9 to Greenawalt Dep, p. 1. Mem P&A’s re MSA 7 F:ANGEMSAmem p&a.wpd
  9. 9. 1 notice to contact me and make payment in full, or I would take any actions available to me to get restitution for his outstanding debt. . . . It is not surprising, 2 though regrettable that he has attempted to change reality through bluster and bluff, but he had no legal claim and has no legal position to argue my sale of the 3 domain name. [sic]37 4 GAP PA now knew that Atanda had sold the domain held in trust for G.A.P. CA as a 5 form of self-help. Despite the fact that it now had undisputed evidence that Atanda had no 6 legitimate ownership rights in at the time it was sold to GAP PA, GAP PA 7 shamelessly adopted Templer’s legal analysis that G.A.P. CA had no basis for challenging the 8 sale and rejected G.A.P. CA demand that it (GAP PA) return the stolen property. 9 This lawsuit followed. 10 11 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT 12 A. A Party Is Entitled to Summary Adjudication Where, as Here, There 13 Is No Dispute as to Material Facts. 14 Principles governing summary judgment also apply to summary adjudication.38 The 15 matter to be determined by the trial court in considering a motion of summary adjudication in 16 favor of the plaintiff is whether the defendant has presented any facts which give rise to a triable 17 issue. Summary judgment is proper if plaintiff’s evidence in support would be sufficient to 18 sustain a judgment in his favor and defendant does not show such facts as may be deemed by the 19 judge hearing the motion sufficient to present a triable issue.39 20 B. The “Sale” of the Domain Name to Gap Pa Was Not Valid Because 21 Gap Pa Purchased Stolen Property with Notice That the Seller Likely Was Not the Real Owner. 22 23 37 Id. at p. 2. 24 38 Grant-Burton v. Covenant Care, Inc.(2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1361, 1370, citing Lomes 25 v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 127, 131 26 39 See Wozniak v. Peninsula Hospital (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 716, 722. Mem P&A’s re MSA 8 F:ANGEMSAmem p&a.wpd
  10. 10. 1 1. The domain name sold to GAP PA was stolen property. 2 Conversion is essentially the civil name for theft.40 Theft of a domain name has 3 expressly been recognized as conversion.41 One who appropriates property that has been 4 entrusted to him is guilty of embezzlement.42 In the instant case, G.A.P. CA through Gerard 5 Angé owned the rights to the domain name For purposes of the web 6 hosting services defendant Anthony Templer dba Atanda Web Services was to provide, G.A.P. 7 CA entrusted Templer with access to codes. Templer, without authorization, used the codes to 8 change the name of the listed owner to himself so that he could then sell the domain name. 9 Accordingly, Templer embezzled the rights to the domain name and, hence, at the time Templer 10 sold the domain name to GAP PA, it was stolen property. 11 12 2. At the time GAP PA purchased the domain name, GAP PA was on notice that the domain name was stolen property. 13 14 I When GAP PA first became interested in purchasing the domain name 15, it checked to see if there already was someone using that domain name by 16 going to that domain name on a computer. Clicking on that domain name, it arrived at a web 17 page for GAP CA that identified the enterprise as G.A.P. International Broadcast Services 18 Division. GAP PA learned that the domain name was being used by a company claiming to be 19 in the business of providing remote television broadcast services. The bottom of the page 20 contained notice that the website was “hosted by Atanda web presence services.” GAP PA did 21 research on Atanda and discovered the existence of the domain name, The web 22 40 See, e.g., AmerUS Life Ins. Co. v. Bank of America, N.A. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 631, 23 640 (“for the sake of completeness, we note that In 1982 the Legislature amended the three-year statute of limitations on actions involving conversion and expressly adopted the discovery rule 24 for theft of certain types of articles [Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision (c)].”. 25 41 See Kremen v. Cohen (9th Cir. 2003) 337 F.3d 1024, 1029 – 1036. 26 42 Penal Code § 484(a), see discussion at Witkin, Criminal Law (3rd Ed.) at § 26, p. 46. Mem P&A’s re MSA 9 F:ANGEMSAmem p&a.wpd
  11. 11. 1 page for lists the businesses in which Atanda engaged in, including web hosting and 2 web name registration. Not only is there no suggestion that Atanda had any connection with the 3 sort of businesses that the web page discussed, but the fact that Atanda was 4 engaged in web name registration put GAP PA on notice that Atanda’s “possession” of the 5 domain name, was not connected to any legitimate commercial use Atanda 6 had in the domain name. 7 GAP PA knew at the time about “cybersquatting,” and knew of no possible commercial 8 connection between Atanda and the domain name After visiting the 9 website, GAP PA knew that some company using that domain name had a 10 business that used the name G.A.P. International. Hence, GAP PA was on notice that Atanda 11 held the domain name either in trust for G.A.P. CA or as stolen property. 12 In either case, GAP PA did not have a good faith belief that it was purchasing the domain name 13 from the legitimate owner. Ownership of property in California means the “right of one or more 14 persons to possess and use it to the exclusion of others.43 Clearly, GAP PA was on notice that 15 Atanda did not have the right to possess the domain name to the exclusion of G.A.P. CA. 16 The law governing the crime of receipt of stolen property provides an appropriate 17 framework for analyzing GAP PA’s position here. As stated in People v. Boinus,: 18 Although guilty knowledge of the fact that the property was stolen is an essential fact to be proved in a prosecution for receiving stolen property, such knowledge 19 need not be that actual and positive knowledge which is acquired from personal observation of the fact. It is not necessary that the defendant be told directly that 20 the property was stolen. Knowledge may be circumstantial and deductive.44 21 Here, GAP PA knew: 22 43 23 Civil Code § 654; see 13 Witkin, Summary of California Law (10th Ed.), Personal Property § 1, p. 5. 24 44 People v. Boinus (1957) 153 Cal.App.2d 618, 621-622; citing People v. Boyden 25 (1953) 116 Cal. App.2d 278, 287; People v. DeVaughn (1934)136 Cal.App. 746, 751; People v. Bycel (1955) 133 Cal.App.2d 596, 599; and People v. Hartridge (1955) 134 Cal.App.2d 659, 26 665. Mem P&A’s re MSA 10 F:ANGEMSAmem p&a.wpd
  12. 12. 1 ‚ The website had been devoted to G.A.P. CA, a company in the business of 2 providing remote television broadcast services 3 ‚ The website was hosted by Atanda 4 ‚ Atanda’s listed businesses included webhosting and web name registration, but 5 did not include providing remote television broadcast services 6 ‚ GAP PA knew that in order for Atanda to have the legitimate right to possess and 7 sell the domain name, Atanda had to have some legitimate commercial use for the 8 domain name 9 ‚ GAP PA researched Atanda in connection with the domain 10 name. 11 ‚ GAP PA found no legitimate commercial use that Atanda had for the 12 13 In other words, GAP PA was immersed in the fishy smell of an illegitimate transaction. 14 GAP PA loudly protested several times that Atanda was not engaged in cybersquatting. But, as 15 the old saw goes, “Saying it don’t make it so.” The only “evidence” GAP PA offered to 16 establish that Atanda was not engaged in cybersquatting was the fact Atanda was the registered 17 owner of the domain name. Curiously, being the registered owner of the particular domain name 18 is a essential requirement of cybersquatting. 19 The undisputed facts establish that GAP PA had the circumstantial and deductive 20 knowledge that Atanda was not the legitimate owner of the domain name. Given that such facts 21 would be sufficient to support a conviction for receipt of stolen goods, it is true, a fortiori, that 22 the facts establish for purposes of tort law that GAP PA did not have a good faith belief that it 23 was buying the domain name from a party with the right to sell it. 24 Even if GAP PA had not been aware of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act 25 26 Mem P&A’s re MSA 11 F:ANGEMSAmem p&a.wpd
  13. 13. 1 (“ACPA”) ,45 the existence of such a law would have served as constructive notice to GAP PA 2 that in purchasing a domain name from a seller that had no apparent commercial connection to 3 the mark that it might be an illegitimate sale. 4 But, here, not only did GAP PA know of the ACPA and that Atanda was a web hosting 5 company, but, prior to the sale, it knew that Atanda was hosting a website at that domain for a 6 company identifying itself as G.A.P. International and that G.A.P. CA business (e.g., remote 7 video transmission) was not among the businesses that Atanda conducted. In short, not only did 8 GAP PA have clear notice that it was facilitating a cybersquatter, but it had clear notice that it 9 was purchasing the domain name from an embezzler. 10 Obviously, if Atanda, in connection with the embezzlement, still held title to the domain 11 name, G.A.P. CA would be entitled to an order restoring title to G.A.P. CA.46 Having obtained 12 property that it was on notice was stolen from the embezzler, GAP PA has no greater rights to 13 the property than the embezzler. 14 Where goods are taken from the fraudulent possessor with knowledge of the fraud, or with knowledge of such facts and circumstances as would have put cautious and prudent 15 men on inquiry, even though full value has been paid for the property, or where, in general, the transactions involved do not operate to transfer the title to the goods.47 16 Hence, Angé is now entitled to summary adjudication of the eleventh cause of action and 17 a declaration stating that the domain name was and remains his property against any claim by 18 GAP PA. 19 III. CONCLUSION 20 A calculation of damages related to the theft of plaintiff’s domain name may be 21 complicated in this matter, but the issue of ownership of the domain name is not. Angé was 22 indisputably the owner of the domain name. The rights to that domain name were indisputably 23 24 45 15 USC §§ 1125, 1127. 25 46 4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure 4th (1997) Plead, § 531, p. 618. 26 47 Oakdale Village Group v. Fong (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 539, 546. Mem P&A’s re MSA 12 F:ANGEMSAmem p&a.wpd
  14. 14. 1 embezzled by Templer based on some misguided notion of a right to “self help.” GAP PA was 2 on clear notice that Templer was likely not the equitable owner of the domain name and yet 3 proceeded to purchase the domain name from Templer and then refused to return the stolen 4 property when Angé demanded it. 5 GAP PA has no legitimate claim to the domain name, only a claim against Templer 6 which it has declined to pursue. G.A.P. CA is entitled to summary judgment on the Eleventh 7 Cause of Action declaring it the legal and equitable owner of the domain name 8 9 10 Respectfully submitted, 11 LAW OFFICES OF MATTANIAH EYTAN 12 13 14 Date: April 3, 2007 By: _______________________________ Eric Schenk 15 Attorneys for plaintiff Gerard Angé 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Mem P&A’s re MSA 13 F:ANGEMSAmem p&a.wpd