Search results

Ownership of Photograph by Employee

-

By Richard Stobbe

While our last post dealt with the creation of photographs and other works of authorship by primates, robots and divine beings, this story is a little more grounded in facts that you might see in the average work day.

When an employee takes a photograph, who owns copyright in the image?

In Mejia v. LaSalle College International Vancouver Inc., 2014 BCSC 1559, a BC court reviewed this question in the context of an employment-related complaint (there were other issues including wrongful dismissal and defamation which we won’t go into). Here, an instructor at LaSalle College in Vancouver took a photograph, and later alleged that the college infringed his copyright in the picture after he discovered that it was being used on LaSalle’s Facebook page.

The main issue was whether the picture was taken in the course of employment. The instructor argued that the photograph was taken during his personal time, on his own camera. He tendered evidence from camera metadata to establish the details of the camera, time and date. He argued that s. 13(3) of the Copyright Act did not apply because he was not employed to take photos. He sought $20,000 in statutory damages. The college argued that the photo was taken of students in the classroom and was within the scope of employment, and copyright would properly belong to the college as the employer, under s. 13(3) of the Act.

The court, after reviewing all of this, decided that the instructor was not hired as a photographer. While an instructor could engage in a wide variety of activities during his employment activities, the court decided that “the taking of photographs was not an activity that was generally considered to be within the duties of the plaintiff instructor, and there was no contractual agreement that he do so.” It was, in short, not connected with the instructor’s employment. In the end, the photograph was not made in the course of employment. Therefore, under s. 13(1) of the Copyright Act, the instructor was the first owner of copyright, and the college was found to have infringed copyright by posting it to Facebook.

Calgary - 07:00 MST

No comments

Social Media Law (Part 3: Defamation)

The use of social means to engage in defamation is nothing new. Indeed, defamation requires the very social element of publication. Social media - Facebook pages or posts, tweets, blogs and online comments - merely make defamation easier and more pervasive.

Canadian courts have struggled to balance the interests of free speech with the interests of individuals who wish to challenge and find redress for defamatory statements. A recent Ontario case has framed the issue as follows:

     “There are few things more cowardly and insidious than an anonymous blogger who posts spiteful and defamatory comments about reputable member of the public and then hides behind the electronic curtain provided by the Internet. The Defendant confuses freedom of speech with freedom of defamation. There are, undoubtedly, legitimate anonymous Internet posts: persons critical of autocratic or repressive regimes, for example, or legitimate whistleblowers. The Defendant is not one of those people. The law will afford his posts all the protection that they deserve, which is to say none.”  Manson v. John Doe , 2013 ONSC 628 (CanLII),

The test laid out by the Supreme Court of Canada (Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61 (CanLII)) is as follows: In order to establish a claim for defamation a plaintiff must establish that:

a)   the impugned words are defamatory, in the sense that they would tend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person;

b)   the words in fact refer to the plaintiff; and

c)   the words were published, i.e., that they were communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff.

In Manson, the court ordered the defendant to pay damages of $100,000 plus aggravated damages of $50,000 and costs. However, the defenant remains anonymous.

Another recent decision in Baglow v. Smith, 2012 ONCA 407 (CanLII), hints at the court’s willingness to permit parties to engage in a heated online political debate, without crossing the line of defamation. In that case, the court observed: “Commentators engaging in the cut and thrust of political discourse in the internet blogosphere can be fervent, if not florid, in the expression of their views.” In the lower court, the statements made in this “cut and thrust” were determined not to constitute defamation. However, on appeal, the court decided the matter was suitable for a full trial and overturned the lower court findings. This is one case to watch.

Related Reading: ipblog’s Defamation Archive

Calgary - 07:00 MST 

No comments

Liability for Online Comments

 

This post by my colleague Dan Carroll provides a great review of the many issues in online defamation, including civil and criminal liability. 

Related Reading:

Calgary - 07:00 MDT

No comments

Online Defamation: Injunctions Against Google in Canada

Courtesy of GoogleHow easy is it to get an injunction against Google? In Nazerali v. Mitchell, a man complained of online defamation, and obtained a preliminary injunction against the author of the allegedly defamatory content, the hosting company (Nozone, Inc.), the domain name registrar (GoDaddy) and Google. The Court ordered the injunction, which included the order prohibiting Google “from permitting the Google.com or Google.ca search engines from returning any search result from www.deepcapture.com.”  Essentially this results in shutting down the (allegedly) offending website, since the court considered it ”impossible surgically to eliminate just the offending phrases”. While this seems to be a dramatic result, considering it was obtained on an ex-parte basis (the other side did not appear at the hearing), it is not without precedent in Canada. 

In Canadian National Railway Company v. Google Inc., 2010 ONSC 3121 (CanLII), the court issued an interim injunction requiring Google to remove a blog hosted on Google’s Blogspot platform.

The injunction in Nazerali v. Mitchell was time-limited and is set to expire tomorrow (December 2).

Hat tip to Alan Macek for highlighting this case.

Calgary - 07:00 MST

No comments

SCC Defamation Decision

This is a story we’ve been following for several years (see our past posts here: Update: Canadian Online Defamation & Hyperlink Case). It’s based on an allegation of online defamation brought by businessman Wayne Crookes, which ultimately focussed on one issue. To succeed in an action for defamation, a person must prove on a balance of probabilities that the defamatory words were “published”. If you hyperlink to defamatory content, can you be liable for “publishing” that defamatory content?  

In a decision this week in the case of Crookes v. Newton, 2011 SCC 47, the country’s top court has upheld the lower court decisions, and decided that there was no publication of the defamatory content in this case. A hyperlink, by itself, is not “publication” of the defamatory content to which it refers. To decide otherwise would ”seriously restrict the flow of information on the Internet and, as a result, freedom of expression,” according to the court. 

Some in the court pointed out that a blanket statement that hyperlinks can never constitute publication is too broad, since links can take many forms. The consensus is that a mere general reference to a website is not enough to find publication. Anyone who links to salacious gossip can now breathe a little easier.

Calgary - 07:00 MDT

No comments

Update: Canadian Online Defamation & Hyperlink Case

The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) is currently considering its verdict in the long-running case of Crookes v Newton The BC Court of Appeal’s 2009 decision (in Crookes v. Newton 2009 BCCA 392) held that Mr. Newton was not liable for hyperlinks to defamatory content. In short, if a person merely hyperlinks to a defamatory site, that act alone does not make that person a “publisher” of the defamatory material found at the hyperlinked site.  Mr. Crookes appealed that decision to the SCC. Oral arguments in the case were heard this week, and a decision is expected soon. With luck, the ruling will clarify the law on liability for hyperlinks - something that has far-reaching consequences for use of the internet in Canada. 

Related Reading:

Can you be anonymous online in Canada?

Is a Website Operator Liable for User Comments?

Defamation Update: Hyperlink Is Not Publication

Online Defamation Update: Doctrine of “presumed publication”

Calgary - 10:00 MST

No comments

Exposing Online Identities: Another Update

When can an internet user remain anonymous?  It depends….

As an update to our recent post about Mosher v. Coast Publishing Ltd., 2010 NSSC 153 (where the identity of anonymous comment-writers was ordered to be disclosed), the recent decision in Warman v. Wilkins-Fournier, [2010] ONSC 2126 (S.C.J.), took an opposite view. 

The recent Wilkins-Fournier decision was an appeal of an earlier decision (See: Online Defamation Update) in which the court ordered the disclosure of all personal information, including name, email and IP address, of eight anonymous posters in a defamation case.  In this new decision, the court reviewed privacy rights and freedom of expression issues, and overturned the disclosure order.  The court indicated that disclosure should not be automatic, and the plaintiff must first demonstrate a prima facie case of defamation before the disclosure of personal identities is ordered.  Interestingly, the court compared this situation to the one in BMG Canada Inc. v. John Doe, where the recording industry sought the disclosure of anonymous alleged copyright infringers. 

Calgary - 09:00 MT

No comments

Can you be anonymous online in Canada?

If someone engages in online defamation, online copyright infringement or any number of other illegal acts on the internet, the first question is who is actually committing the act in question? One of the main issues facing litigants in Canada is the identity of anonymous actors who are shielded by mysterious usernames, aliases or cryptic email addresses. 

In a recent decision in Nova Scotia, a judge ordered Google and a local paper to disclose the identity of individuals who are alleged to have posted defamatory statements on a local website.  The judge declared: “The court doesn’t condone the conduct of anonymous Internet users who make defamatory comments. They, like other people, have to be accountable for their actions.” The decision flies in the face of other Canadian court decisions where judges have erred on the side of caution by protecting the identity of online users.

In an online defamation case on the other side of the country, the BC Court of Appeal decision in Crookes v. Newton (see our previous post) is heading to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC).  Leave to appeal was granted earlier this month and the decsion of the SCC should clarify this area of law, particularly the extent of liability for hyperlinks to defamatory content. 

Calgary - 08:00 MST

1 comment

Is a Website Operator Liable for User Comments?

Three recent decisions tackle this issue: 

In the US decision of Cornelius v. DeLuca, 2009 WL 2568044 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 18, 2009), bodybuilding.com (an online retailer of fitness and bodybuilding products), was sued over the content of certain comments posted to the bodybuilding.com website. The plaintiffs complained that the comments were designed to harm the plaintiffs’ business. This decision considered whether the operator of bodybuilding.com should be liable for those user comments.  In the US, there is a standard defence for website operators (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act), but that defence can be punctured if the operator was in a “conspiracy” relationship with the persons posting the comments.  The court found no such conspiracy and so the website operator was found to be not liable, and the claim was dismissed.  

In Canada, in the decision this month in Warman v. Lemire 2009 CHRT 26, a Human Rights Tribunal found that a site operator should not be liable for comments if the operator had no notice or knowledge of the comments.  This is a “hate speech” case, not a corporate defamation case as in the Cornelius v. DeLuca decision above. Also, it’s worth noting that this comes from a Human Rights Tribunal, not a Canadian court. The decision maker said: “I do not see how liability for hate messages posted by anonymous or pseudonymous third parties should be ‘attributed’ to a message board operator if it has not been established that he or she has notice or knowledge of these postings.” Several comments and articles were reviewed, and in one of the cases, the impugned article was posted or uploaded by the administrator or webmaster.  In that instance the operator was found to be responsible.  However, the operator escaped punishment on constitutional grounds.  The decision is expected to be appealed.

The BC Court of Appeal’s decision last week in Crookes v. Newton 2009 BCCA 392 considered liability for hyperlinks. In that decision (one of many generated by Mr. Crookes’ lawsuits), the Court of Appeal agreed that Mr. Newton was not liable for hyperlinks to defamatory content. The Court reasoned that “reference to an article containing defamatory content without repetition of the comment itself should not be found to be a republication of such defamatory content”.  In other words, if someone merely hyperlinks to a defamatory site, that alone does not make that person a “publisher” of the material found at the hyperlinked site.  This will help clarify the liability of website hosts or operators, since user comments which merely link to defamatory or other offending material, will not attract liability.

Calgary - 09:15 MST

Updated Sept. 22 16:42 MST

No comments

Online Defamation Update: Cohen v. Google

Online defamation has always been about two issues: there’s the legal question of whether the online comments are “defamatory” according to the standard legal tests, but before you get to that stage, you need to know who is writing the defamatory comments.

That’s often where the inquiry starts and stops. Since online anonymity is so hard to pierce, the identity of the poster of defamatory comments is never known, and the person who is defamed has no-one to sue for defamation.  A court order on Monday has shed some light on the process of getting over that anonymity hurdle.  In the case of Cohen v. Google Inc., Index No. 100012/09 (N.Y. Co. August 17, 2009) (Madden, J., J.S.C.) (related story), a Canadian model has obtained an order compelling Google to disclose the identity of the author of the alleged defamatory comments.  “Pre-complaint disclosure” is not new, but this case has attracted attention because of the elements: a New York model, Google, and blogging.

In Canada, similar orders have been made in online defamation cases. In a 2009 decision in the case of Warman v. Fournier, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered the disclosure of all personal information, including name, email and IP address, of eight anonymous posters in a defamation case.

Calgary - 14:00 MST

3 comments

Article on Internet Law

Maclean’s magazine (macleans.ca) interviewed Richard Stobbe, lawyer with the Technology & IP Group, for an article on defamation and internet law. The article takes a look at the “dark side” of anonymity on the internet and the state of the law in Canada.

Calgary - 9:45 MST

No comments

SCC Upholds Internet Defamation Decision

Last Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the decision in Fromm v. Warman, to award $30,000 in damages for internet defamation. The judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, 2008 ONCA 842, handed down in December, 2008 [Link to Court of Appeal Decision] was upheld. Warman brought an action against Fromm for defamatory postings on various internet websites. Fromm took the position that the comments were “fair comment” on matters of public interest. The court upheld the finding that the postings were defamatory.

Calgary - 09:30 MST

No comments

Defamation Update: Hyperlink Is Not Publication

We have previously commented on the series of defamation lawsuits  commenced by Wayne Crookes.  These lawsuits are resulting in court judgements which have established some guidance in this emerging area.  The latest decision, Crookes v. Wikimedia Foundation Inc., 2008 BCSC 1424 has established that linking to defamatory content does not, in itself, amount to publication of that content.  In other words, the publisher of an article which links to the defamatory content, without reproducing it, is not liable for the defamation. The court stated that “the mere creation of a hyperlink in a website does not lead to a presumption that persons read the contents of the website and used the hyperlink to access the defamatory words.”  And the court went on to say that “reference to an article containing defamatory content without repetition of the comment itself should not be found to be a republication of such defamatory content”.  

The court’s analysis refers to evidence of whether anyone linked to and read the defamatory content, leaving open the question of whether different facts would have resulted in a different conclusion.  Liability may arise where there is ample evidence that numerous readers used the link to access the defamatory content, or in a situation where the linked content is used to refer directly to the defamed person.  The court speculated that if an article states “the truth about [the defamed person] is found here” and “here” is hyperlinked to the specific defamatory words, then the publisher of the article may be liable. 

There was also a recent defamation decision in Ontario, giving rise to $50,000 in damages for online defamation. 

A third decision, in Manson v. Moffat, [2008] O.J. No. 1697, resulted in a damage award of $20,000 for internet libel, and an injunction was issued against the U.S. defendant.  The case arose from false statements posted online relating to the plaintiff’s patent. 

Calgary - 10:00 MST

No comments

Sticks & Stones: Online Defamation & Privacy Decision

What happens when a resident of B.C. posts defamatory comments on a usenet group about a resident of Australia?

In this case, two men were engaged in a protracted and ugly name-calling session in the usenet group “alt.suicide.holiday”, described as a discussion forum for persons who were feeling depressed and suicidal. In Griffin v. Sullivan, 2008 BCSC 827, a BC court has reviewed the issues around online defamation and breach of privacy.  The decision resulted in an award of damages for defamation of $150,000 and an award of $25,000 in damages for breach of privacy as well as a permanent injunction against the B.C. man. 

The claim for breach of privacy arose when the B.C. man published the name and address of the plaintiff Australian man.  Names and addresses are often considered public information; however, the court found that the disclosure constituted breach of privacy (under the very seldom-used B.C. Privacy Act) since the Australian man had previously maintained his anonymity in the usenet group, and group members often shared sensitive information about themselves. 

The other interesting element of the decision is that the court did not review the fundamental question of whether anyone in B.C. (or anywhere else in Canada) actually read the defamatory postings.   In Crookes v. Yahoo, 2008 BCCA 165, the Court of Appeal made it clear that merely alleging that something has been posted on the internet is not, on its own, sufficient to show that publication can be presumed, as we reported earlier

Names can never hurt you… but they can result in significant damage awards.  

Calgary - 14:30 MST

No comments

Domain Name & Defamation Case

A disgruntled ex-employee registers the dot-com version of the employer’s dot-ca domain name.  Then, just before leaving on vacation out of the country, the ex-employee directs the dot-com domain name to a gay porn site.  The employer sues for damages.  

In a recent judgement (Inform Cycle Ltd. v. Draper, 2008 ABQB 369), the Court has awarded damages against the ex-employee for passing-off and defamation, to the tune of $15,000.00.  The case is interesting for a few reasons: first, it is one of the few decisions dealing with both online corporate defamation (defamation of business reputation on the internet) and domain name issues.  And it is interesting for the summary way in which the Court concluded that damages were appropriate. 

In the B.C. case of Crookes v. Yahoo, the Court disposed of an online defamation claim by reasoning that there was no evidence that the alleged defamatory material was accessed by someone in B.C.  “Publication is an essential element for an action in defamation,” said the judge. “In this case … [t]here is no evidence anyone read the material in British Columbia.” 

Contrast that with the analysis in the Inform Cycle case: “There is no record of the number of people who were forwarded to the gay pornographic website…the people referred to the ‘.com’ site over that 16 day period were people who had made an error by choosing ‘.com’ instead of ‘.ca’. We do not know how many people made that error. We do not know how many actually thought that the referral to the porn site was deliberate rather than a computer or internet glitch. We do not know if anyone, or how many, actually believed that Inform was involved in the porn site or business.” (emphasis added) Despite those apparent gaps in the evidence, the Court had no problem concluding that defamation had occurred, and that damages were appropriate.  The difference might be explained (at least partly) by the fact that the alleged defamatory comments in the Crookes case were made in a members-only discussion forum. It’s likely that the nature of the site where the domain name was directed also has something to do with it.  It is clear that further clarity on these issues is required.

Calgary - 15:30 MST

No comments

Online Defamation Update: Doctrine of “presumed publication”

This is the story of online defamation allegations levelled against Yahoo, Google, Wikipedia, MySpace and others by a B.C. man who says he was defamed by certain online postings. We have been following this defamation case since it was initiated (See:earlier post ). 

The BC Court of Appeal has now dismissed the appeal relating to Yahoo.  In Crookes v. Yahoo, 2008 BCCA 165, the Court has made it clear that merely alleging that something has been posted on the internet is not, on its own, sufficient to show that publication can be presumed.  In other words, just because it was online, doesn’t mean anyone read it.  This is important because “publication” must be proved in order to win a defamation case.  If there’s no publication, then there can be no defamation. In the case of newspapers and broadcasts, publication is presumed.  The BC Court of Appeal has made it clear that this presumption does not always apply with the internet.

In this case, the allegedly defamatory comments were made on a members-only site, and the court said: “In Wiebe [Wiebe v Bouchard, a 2005 defamation case] significance was attached to the fact the libellous statements were posted on the internet nationwide as well as being made available in the main public library in Victoria.  But they were posted on a Government of Canada website and, as was noted, were made available to everyone in the country who had a computer.  By contrast, the statements that are the subject of Mr. Crookes’ action were posted on a website with restricted access that was not available to the public.  The basis for any presumption that might be said to have been recognized in Wiebe does not exist here.  I do not consider the mere fact a statement was posted on a website with the kind of restricted access there was in this case supports the presumption it was read by anyone in British Columbia.”

This is a helpful step forward in clarifying online defamation law in Canada.

Calgary - 10:45 MST

No comments

Online Defamation Decision

There have been a string of cases in Canada dealing with defamation in the internet context, providing useful guidance in this area.  It seems that old fashioned defamation in hard-copy newspapers will remain a quaint memory from the last century.  The last case we covered was from British Columbia - the latest decision comes out of Ontario.

In Warman v. Fromm and Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc., (Ontario Superior Court of Justice - Case No. 04-CV-26550SR), the court reviewed a string of defamatory postings and rejected the defence of fair comment.  The court awarded general and aggravated damages totaling $30,000, and ordered the defendants to post full retractions within 10 days.

 

Calgary - 10:35 MST

No comments

Online Defamation Update

In our earlier post, we highlighted a defamation lawsuit brought against Google, Wikipedia, Yahoo, MySpace and others by a B.C. man who alleged he was defamed by certain online postings.  Multiple lawsuits have been filed. This week in Crookes v. Yahoo, 2007 BCSC 1325, a B.C. court dismissed the case against Yahoo, a California-based company.

The court disposed of the claim by reasoning that there was no evidence that the alleged defamatory material was accessed by someone in B.C.  “Publication is an essential element for an action in defamation,” said the judge. “In this case … [t]here is no evidence anyone read the material in British Columbia.”

As a result, the court did not even consider the other issues about whether California law applied under the terms applicable to the online services, nor about the wider issues relating to liability for online content.

 

Calgary - 13:35 MST

2 comments

Google, Wikipedia in Canadian Defamation Suit

On April 10th, we posted an article about Online Defamation.  This week, a very interesting new online defamation lawsuit  was launched in Canada catching two high-profile defendants: Blogspot.com, Google’s free blog-hosting site, and Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. 

The suit was filed by Wayne Crookes who alleges that he suffered defamation at the hands of anonymous posts to those sites.  The question will be whether the operators of the sites can be held liable for defamatory postings.  As we noted in our earlier post, online content-providers such as Google and Wikipedia cannot take advantage of the traditional protections provided to newspaper publishers or broadcasters.  The law in Canada could use some further clarity in this area, and this case may provide it.

 

Calgary - 09:50 MST   

1 comment

Online Defamation

When I wrote an article about online defamation in 2005, MySpace and YouTube were still relatively unknown.  The prospect of a highschool principal suing former students for defamation would have been remote.  Now, it’s a reality. 

In Canada, the issue of internet defamation came back into the spotlight when Sharman Networks CEO Nikki Hemming filed a libel lawsuit against p2pnet last year.  The suit will be interesting to watch as it may clarify when ISPs and hosts of online discussion forums will be liable for publication of defamatory content. 

In the 2003 case of Bahlieda v. Santa, the Ontario Court of Appeal dealt with a complaint of online defamation.  The lower court initially decided that the online material qualified as a ‘broadcast’ (similar to a television or radio broadcast) for the purposes of the provincial Libel & Slander Act.  Under that law a defendant can deflect a complaint if it is not brought within six weeks.  On appeal, the court overturned this decision, allowing the complaint to proceed.

In Weiss v. Sawyer, a defamatory letter was published in both the hard-copy paper and online version of a newspaper.  Both the paper and the online versions were treated as ‘newspapers’ for the purpose of the provincial libel and slander law, and the time limits applied. The complaints were dismissed because they were brought outside those strict time limits. However, an email transmission of the same material was not considered a ‘newspaper’ or ‘broadcast’ under the legislation. The complaint in connection with the email was allowed to proceed.

ISPs and online content-providers probably can’t take advantage of the protections afforded to newspaper publishers or broadcasters unless the material appears in an online version of a traditional newspaper or broadcast.

 

Calgary - 11:45 MST

No comments

Next Page »


Deprecated: Function set_magic_quotes_runtime() is deprecated in /home/rstobbe/ipblog.ca/wp-content/themes/rstobbe/style.php on line 118

Deprecated: Function set_magic_quotes_runtime() is deprecated in /home/rstobbe/ipblog.ca/wp-content/themes/rstobbe/style.php on line 125
Casodex without prescription mexico purchase Benicar pay pal online without rx can i get Revia without rx order Revia pay pal online without rx order Zovirax without a prescription overnight shipping buy prescription Vantin online order Arcoxia online overnight shipping buy Cycrin in england Buy Benicar without a prescription buy Desogen doctor prescription Revia over the counter buy Cycrin online without a prescription where can i get Tenormin Benicar effects buy 90 mg arcoxia Online Zovirax buy vantin without rx from us pharmacy Cleocin order Zovirax online cheap buy Atarax overnight delivery buy Principen no scams Cycrin no prescription to buy buy Casodex no prescription cod to buy Keflex online purchase Lamictal Revia without prescriptions in usa orlistat can i buy orlistat online purchase generic xenical online purchase xenical no visa online without prescription orlistat for sale cheapest place to buy orlistat buy online rx xenical without orlistat online no prescription buy cheap generic xenical online canada pharmacy no prescription order xenical without rx orlistat overnight without prescription buy generic orlistat online no prescription xenical without a rx ordering xenical over the counter order orlistat online overnight shipping buy xenical online with overnight delivery discount orlistat order lamictal overnight cheap where to purchase generic atarax online without a prescription where to buy cheap casodex no prescription buy benicar without a percsription uk lamictal generic safety order keflex casodex overnight online vantin no prescription to buy asacol prescription from s online atarax 100 mg cytotec purchase without prescription buy cheap generic vantin online canada pharmacy no prescription generic 20mg benicar online how to get prescription of lamictal buy vantin in uk how to get keflex without zovirax usa buy cheap desogen with dr. prescription feldene without script purchasing benicar canadian zovirax diet pills without a prescription purchase cycrin pay pal online without prescription buy desogen online overnight buy cheap zovirax online tenormin without rx revia in canada how to buy asacol online without rx buy vantin tablets without prescription buy atarax amex online without rx purchase cheap online principen zovirax with out a prescription where to buy cheap zovirax no prescription feldene available at health department desogen purchased online without prescription keflex precio buy keflex c o d buy benicar doctor prescription order desogen amex online without prescription buy online desogen without rx zovirax apotheke buy vantin no rx wholesale zovirax cheap lamictal 100mg generic asacol 400 mg buy zovirax online overnight arcoxia ordering generic benicar no prescription i want a zovirax prescription lamictal ordering without a dr casodex no rx canadian prescriptions keflex keflex with no prescription and delivered over night revia online online us pharmacy zovirax buy revia epharmacist tenormin without prescriptions in usa keflex online consultation overnight purchase revia online no membership overnight shipping buy revia in england order benicar on line buy tenormin online without script canadian vantin diet pills without a prescription buy atarax on line amex buy tenormin overnight delivery buy vantin overnight orlistat online order buying xenical without a prescription purchase orlistat without prescription to ship overnight order xenical no visa order xenical no prescription buy orlistat on line amex medikament orlistat orlistat suppliers xenical on line no prescription order cheap overnight xenical xenical prescription online next day delivery buy in orlistat uk generic xenical online xenical no prescription needed 120mg orlistat online pharmacy where to buy xenical no prescription order overnight xenical xenical with no r x and free shipping purchase orlistat prescription online buy xenical without a prescription in the united states buying xenical online orlistat buy no prescription orlistat overdose order orlistat without a rx overnight shipping no prescription xenical on line pharmacy xenical without a prescription or membership orlistat generic can i buy orlistat online xenical from mexico us xenical fedex xenical overnight no script mastercard accepted buy xenical online cheap cheap xenical no prescription ordering xenical from canada without a prescription where can i get orlistat without a prescription ordering xenical online without a prescription buy xenical amex online generic orlistat canada xenical online with next day shipping xenical without a presciption no prescription orlistat cod delivery order cheap overnight xenical i need to order xenical without presciption and order it cod orlistat online no prescription and overnight no prescription required for xenical online pharmacy orlistat no prescription online overnight shipping xenical el orlistat generico orlistat from canada xenical no rx foreign cytotec online purchase buy orlistat c o d order buy orlistat online generic orlistat xenical buy online without rx no prescription xenical canadian generic orlistat no prescription buy xenical 120mg no rx orlistat generic orlistat without prescription canada buy orlistat pills no prescription orlistat online no prescription xenical online purchase xenical orderd online without prescription xenical in canada xenical no physicisn consult orlistat online order xenical no script fedex canadian prescriptions xenical purchase orlistat no visa without prescription buy xenical 120mg buy orlistat no prescriptions online purchase xenical order xenical cheap overnight purchase cheap orlistat cod free fedex how to get orlistat online no prescription in 120 days cheap orlistat usa xenical over night buy cheapest orlistat purchase xenical online no membership purchase orlistat prescription online how to buy xenical online without a rx no prescription generic xenical orlistat online prescription orlistat 120 mg without a prescription orlistat available canada cheap orlistat no prescription indian xenical purchase xenical online without script xenical online with no prescription or membership orlistat order on line purchase orlistat free consultation i want to buy orlistat without a perscription buy orlistat online without prescription from canada buy genuine orlistat online cheap order rx orlistat buy orlistat pills no prescription orlistat buy online in stock orlistat in usa buy orlistat in england orlistat for sale order orlistat without rx needed purchase orlistat without rx needed order orlistat without rx needed orlistat buy online in stock buy xenical online cheap xenical online order buy xenical no visa without rx orlistat order on line buy discount orlistat purchase orlistat usa cod orlistat sale no prescription xenical without a presciption buy generic orlistat canada buy orlistat online order xenical amex online without prescription buy xenical tablets without prescription (buy orlistat pills|buy Orlistat oral) (ordering orlistat from canada without a prescription|Orlistat purchase without perscripotion|buy cheap generic Orlistat online canada pharmacy no prescription|buy generic Orlistat online no prescription quick delivery|buy Orlistat online without prescription from canada|buy Orlistat without rx|cheap Orlistat no prescription|Orlistat online|how to order Orlistat|i need to order Orlistat without a prescription|low price rx online website Orlistat|online pharmacy Orlistat no prescription|Orlistat generic sale|Xenical without prescription|where can i get Orlistat without a prescription|Orlistat cheap online) (prescription orlistat|Orlistat online purchase|buy Xenical australia|Orlistat online cheap|order Orlistat without rx|UK medication Orlistat Xenical buy online|where to purchase Orlistat oral cheap) (order orlistat mastercard|canadian generic Orlistat no prescription|non prescription Orlistat) no prescriptions needed for xenical (orlistat 120mg tablets express shipping|Orlistat without prescription|order Orlistat online overnight shipping|Orlistat for sale without prescription|Orlistat without rx) xenical prescription online next day delivery xenical prescription from doctors online (orlistat no doctors prescription|buy discounted Orlistat online|buy non prescription drugs generic Orlistat|buy Orlistat online without prescription from canada|buy Orlistat next day delivery|canadian pharmacy Orlistat|generic Orlistat from india|how to buy Orlistat without a prescription|how to get Orlistat|Orlistat online no prescription 120 mg|Orlistat online without prescription|Orlistat to buy in canada|Orlistat with out a prescription) xenical overnight delivery fed ex next day fedex shipping for xenical buy on line orlistat getting orlistat without doctor buy orlistat cheap without prescription orlistat express online buy orlistat without a prescription in the united states how to buy orlistat without a prescription no rx needed for purchasing xenical no prescription orlistat buy orlistat over the counter xenical sale no prescription order orlistat no visa cheap orlistat without a prescription get orlistat without prescription generic orlistat prices orlistat overnight delivery fed ex purchase orlistat online no membership overnight shipping overnight xenical without a prescription i want a xenical prescription order generic xenical online no prescription orlistat no rx buy orlistat no visa without rx buy cheap xenical without prescription buy cheap orlistat line where can i buy orlistat without a prescription buy orlistat australia generic orlistat canada generic orlistat no prescription (buy orlistat canada|generic Orlistat no prescription|Orlistat oral tablet no prescription discount|non prescription Orlistat|ordering Orlistat online without a precription|Orlistat online without a prescription) buy orlistat canada xenical without script buy no prescription xenical fedex xenical overnight without a rx purchase xenical amex online without prescription online overnight shipping xenical how to get orlistat online no prescription in 120 days order xenical without rx xenical online consultation overnight orlistat cost xenical without script xenical without a prescription overnight shipping buy no prescription xenical order xenical without rx from us pharmacy generic xenical no prescription problems with buying orlistat without rx buy orlistat online without a prescription generic xenical without a precsriptions buy line orlistat online pharmacy no prescription orlistat buy xenical free consultation buy orlistat no scams order generic orlistat online no prescription buy orlistat free consultation online consultation for xenical orlistat without prescription shipped overnight express purchase xenical money purchase buy orlistat usa generic xenical no prescription purchase online prescription xenical buy orlistat without a rx overnight delivery how to order orlistat online without a rx buy orlistat without rx order orlistat online overnight shipping purchase xenical usa cod buy xenical online with no perscription buy orlistat from india cheap xenical for sale online no prescription required buy Maxalt drugs Maxalt online prescription buy Maxalt us how to buy arimidex arimidex 1mg side effects order arimidex overnight arimidex purchase overnight delivery order arimidex online no prescription buy generic arimidex uk buy keflex epharmacist buy atarax cod next day delivery buy arcoxia doctor prescription revia 50mg fedex keflex without priscription buy next day keflex benicar with no presciption atarax purchase without prescription buy revia with american express buy vantin online 200 mg no prescription buy lamictal in united states online atarax side effects purchase asacol online no membership overnight shipping no prescription needed feldene principen with no prescriptions buy vantin online 200 mg no prescription Maxalt apotheke buy Maxalt epharmacist buy Maxalt legally Maxalt online no prescription buy Maxalt online us pharmacy order Maxalt no rx Maxalt buy Maxalt buy Maxalt no prescription uk buy Maxalt online purchase Maxalt buy Maxalt in england Maxalt overnight cod ordering maxalt online buy Maxalt cash on delivery Maxalt cheap mexican uk buy Maxalt Maxalt rezept buying Maxalt online discount Maxalt buy Maxalt visa no prescription Maxalt purchase cheap online Maxalt buy Maxalt american express Maxalt by mail buy Maxalt online us pharmacy buy Maxalt online now non rx cheap Maxalt purchase Maxalt online buy maxalt mastercard Maxalt prices Maxalt online prescription Maxalt tablets Maxalt prices Maxalt fedex shipping Maxalt 10mg is it legal to buy Arimidex online Arimidex tablets 1 mg no prescription australia buy online Arimidex 1 mg Arimidex rx cheap best place order Arimidex where to buy Arimidex Arimidex online australia buy Revia buy revia without a percsription order rx free tenormin canadian pharmacy no prescription asacol order cycrin 10 mg without prescription purchase asacol online no membership order buy arcoxia online buy vantin without a rx buy casodex without a prescription to ship overnight ordering benicar over the counter generic vantin uk online revia purchase purchase revia online without prescription non presciption revia cheapest place to buy revia buy revia without a perscription non prescription cheap revia order no online rx revia buy revia no visa without rx problems with buying revia without rx uk order revia Keflex without script purchase Atarax visa without prescription order Atarax without rx needed Keflex available canada buy Keflex diet pill Tenormin fedex cytotec 100 mg without prescription where to buy Premarin online prednisolone online uk Premarin 0.625mg what is it used for buy requip from canada is requip a prescription drug mail order requip Premarin purchase online cost of Premarin canada buy cheap Premarin online prednisolone online uk buy requip 1mg buy requip online usa order requip canada cheap requip online how to buy requip online ordering zovirax buy discount feldene principen without prescription medications where can i purchase lamictal no rx buy cheap asacol without a prescription purchasing vantin online without prescription buy cheap generic arcoxia where to purchase generic revia online without a prescription buying atarax online without prescription online pharmacy Maxalt purchase maxalt without prescription to ship overnight buy Maxalt diet pills buy genuine Maxalt online buy pharmacy Maxalt waterview buy Maxalt Maxalt bestellen Rizatriptan Maxalt buy Maxalt usa buy Maxalt on line cycrin shipped c.o.d. purchase cleocin no visa without prescription buy cleocin tablets canadian pharmacy no prescription atarax cheap cleocin no prescription pharmacy keflex no prescrption lamictal online buy saturday delivery buy vantin overnight delivery can i get vantin without rx purchase principen amex online without rx revia effects buy asacol on line buy cheapest casodex buy revia online uk buy vantin overnight delivery zovirax without dr vantin with no rx buy 1 mg Arimidex uk cheap Arimidex buy Arimidex 1mg canada buy Arimidex 1 mg online can i get Arimidex without rx buy 1mg Arimidex requip online for dogs requip buy where can i buy requip online cost of requip australia purchase Premarin online