By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: February 28, 2006
Filed at 3:31 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out a lawsuit that accused two oil companies of inflating gas prices by at least $1 billion.
Justices unanimously said gas distributors did not prove that Chevron Corp. and Shell Oil Co., a U.S. subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, violated antitrust laws in the joint venture, which ended four years ago.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, said the companies had a legal partnership. ''The pricing decisions of a legitimate joint venture do not fall within the narrow category of activity that is per se unlawful'' under federal law, Thomas said.
At the time of the deal in 1998, Texaco was independent from Chevron. The company joined with Shell to form enterprises to handle refining and marketing of their gasoline.
Gas distributors filed a class-action lawsuit in California, alleging that Texaco and Shell had used the partnership to fix gas prices in violation of antitrust provisions of the Sherman Act.
A ruling in favor of the gas distributors would have had broad implications for business mergers beyond the oil industry.
Representatives of Chevron and Shell lauded the decision.
''As the Supreme Court noted, the joint venture, which no longer exists, was extensively reviewed and approved by the federal government's antitrust enforcement agency, the Federal Trade Commission,'' Chevron spokesman Donald Campbell said. ''It was also reviewed by four state attorneys general, who similarly concluded that the venture was not anticompetitive.''
A lawyer representing the plaintiffs did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
The case was argued at the court last month, and justices signaled then that they were not concerned that the giant gas companies went too far. Chief Justice John Roberts said that joint ventures must price their products, and it shouldn't matter whether they are sold as a new brand or under the Shell and Texaco labels.
Gas price-fixing has been a sensitive subject over the past year for Americans who experienced surging prices that exceeded $3 a gallon in many parts of the country.
A trial court judge dismissed the lawsuit against the oil companies. But the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled there was evidence that the ventures had improperly restrained trade.
The high court erased that decision. Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the case because he was not on the court when the appeal was argued.
The cases are Texaco v. Dagher, 04-805, and Shell Oil v. Dagher, 04-814.
Shares of Chevron fell 59 cents to $56.51 on the New York Stock Exchange, where those of Royal Dutch Shell declined by 50 cents to $60.41.
In the past year, Chevron has traded in a range of $49.50 to $65.98, and Royal Dutch Shell has traded between $57.79 and $68.45.
On the Net:
Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

By REUTERS
Published: February 28, 2006
Filed at 10:40 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that Shell Oil Co. and Texaco Inc. cannot be held liable under the antitrust law for their now-defunct joint ventures that had been approved by the federal government and that set the selling price for gasoline.
The justices unanimously overturned a U.S. appeals court ruling that the antitrust law's automatic prohibition against price fixing applied to the economic arrangements under the two joint ventures set up in 1998 and discontinued in 2001.

The ruling for Shell and Texaco stemmed from a lawsuit brought by 23,000 gas station owners in the western United States who said the two companies conspired to fix prices for their gasoline brands through the joint ventures.
The joint ventures took over the gasoline wholesaling and retaining operations of the two companies. One venture, called Equilon Enterprises, operated in the U.S. West while the other one, Motiva Enterprises, covered the eastern United States.
Texaco left the joint venture when it merged with Chevron Corp. in 2001 to form ChevronTexaco Corp. (CVX.N). The company now is called Chevron Corp. Shell Oil is a unit of Royal Dutch/Shell (RD.AS) (SHEL.L).
A federal judge in Los Angeles dismissed the lawsuit, but the appeals court ruled it could go forward. It ruled the companies could be held liable because the joint ventures priced Texaco and Shell gasoline the same.
The companies said the U.S. Federal Trade Commission approved the joint ventures and that they cannot be held liable. The U.S. Justice Department supported them.
The Supreme Court ruled for the two oil companies.
Justice Clarence Thomas concluded in the seven-page opinion that it is not automatically illegal under the antitrust law for a lawful, economically integrated joint venture to set the prices at which the joint venture sells its products.
He said Equilon's pricing policy may be price fixing in a literal sense, but it is not price fixing in the antitrust sense.

ARTICLE BY JOHN DONOVAN
Zack Brown, an Arctic Wilderness Associate for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group arrived in London last Wednesday morning on an overnight flight from Washington DC. The sole purpose of his mission was to purchase sufficient shares in Royal Dutch Shell plc to enable a resolution to be submitted for inclusion on the agenda for Shell’s AGM in May 2006 relating to Shell’s exploration plans for the Arctic Wilderness. A resolution put forward on this basis has to have the support of 100 shareholders before being considered for inclusion.
Mr Brown had a meeting at The Shell Centre later the same day with Royal Dutch Shell Plc Assistant Company Secretary, Mr Mark Edwards. The events surrounding what unfortunately turned out to be an unsuccessful mission are set out in the correspondence below. It was unsuccessful despite the fact that Mr Brown had the necessary funds and shareholder names. I will leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions from the correspondence.
I have removed most telephone and fax numbers as it does not seem appropriate to publish them on the Internet. The exception is the contact information for Zack Brown which he has previously given us permission to publish.
EMAIL FROM JOHN DONOVAN TO SHELL INTERNATIONAL 21 FEBRUARY 2006
For the attention of Mr Gerard Paulides
Shell International Ltd
Group Investor Relations
FI Division
Shell Centre
London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom.
Telephone: Fax:
E-mail: ir-london@shell.com
Dear Gerard
I am an existing shareholder in Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
I have been asked by the Zack Brown, an Arctic Wilderness Associate of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group to assist in purchasing 100 shares in Royal Dutch Shell Plc so that it is possible for their organisation to put a resolution on the agenda for the Shell AGM on 16 May 2006. I should make it clear that I am not authorised to speak on their behalf and this communication is therefore entirely at my initiative. I understand that a deadline is fast approaching for the introduction of any such resolution.
I have already been in contact with Lloyds TSN Registrars but it has not thus far been possible to obtain answers to questions on this matter. I have also spoken to my own stockbrokers via HSBC Bank and have been informed that I can act as a nominee and purchase 100 shares at a cost of £29.95 each which includes admin charges. The shares could then each be transferred in to a different shareholders name, in this instance US citizens. However it would take up to 5 working days for the names to appear on the register of shareholders, which probably takes us over the deadline.
I am sure that Shell would like to assist in any reasonable way that it can to facilitate the important issues relating to oil exploration in the Arctic Wilderness to be put before shareholders. I would therefore be most grateful for your answers to the following questions.
What is the deadline for submitting a shareholder resolution?
Would Shell accept a confirmation from share brokers that the shares had been purchased provided evidence was supplied of individual shareholder names?
If the answer to the above question is no, can I go to Lloyds Registrars with the cash to purchase 100 shares on the spot, in which case I would supply the names of the individual shareholders. If this can be done could you very kindly give me a contact name and phone number?
As there appears to be great urgency attached to this matter I would be most grateful for your reply ASAP.
My telephone number is:
Mobile:
I will also send a copy of this communication by fax.
Yours sincerely
John Donovan
EMAIL FROM JOHN DONOVAN TO ZACK BROWN 21 FEBRUARY 2006
Hello Zack
I had a long informative chat with Mark Edwards, the assistant Company Secretary of Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
He says that you have also been in contact and that an email has been sent to you.
This is what he told me.
The deadline is 1st March for a non defamatory resolution to be filed.
All shareholder names/addresses must be straightforward i.e. no nominees names or addresses.
If deadline is missed the resolution could still be added but it would need to be filed 6 weeks before the AGM. However you would have to meet the distribution and postal costs estimated at between £70,000 and £100,000. This would appear to rule out that option.
He says that you would need to act with great speed to meet the 1st March deadline and has given me the name and phone number of a person to contact at Lloyds TSB: Mr Bert Groves on 01903 XXXXXX. Unfortunately he is not available tomorrow, so I hope you were given this information and have already been in contact. If you have not already done so I understand that someone else will answer his phone tomorrow and hopefully deal with the matter.
Mark suggested in any event that you should seek legal advice about your plans. Basically Shell considers the issues involved to be important and would be happy to see a resolution on the subject.
No doubt I will hear from you.
Regards
John
EMAIL FROM JOHN DONOVAN TO MR MAARTEN VAN DEN BERGH, CHAIRMAN, LLOYDS TSB BANKING GROUP: 23 FEBRUARY 2006
23rd February 2006
Mr. Maarten A van den Bergh
Chairman
Lloyds TSB Group
25 Gresham Street
EC2V 7HN
URGENT
4 PAGES BY FAX ONLY TO:
FROM FAX NUMBER:
Dear Mr. Maarten van den Bergh

U.S. Public Interest Research Group
I am writing to you on an urgent matter both in your capacity as Chairman of the Lloyds TSB Group and a main board director of Royal Dutch Shell Plc. It concerns oil exploration in the Arctic Wilderness and associated vitally important issues, including for example the fate of the Caribou, Bowhead Whale and Polar Bear.
I attach a copy of a self-explanatory letter to Shell International Limited concerning Mr. Zack Brown, an Arctic Wilderness Associate of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. I have also supplied a copy of a subsequent email that I sent to Mr. Brown following a conversation with Mr. Mark Edwards, the Assistant Company Secretary of Royal Dutch Shell Plc. By that time, Mr. Brown had already spoken by telephone to Mr. Edwards. All of these communications took place on Tuesday 21st February.
As a result, Mr. Brown decided to take an overnight flight to London from Washington DC and had a meeting with Mr. Edwards at The Shell Centre yesterday. He advised Mr. Edwards of his plans to visit Lloyds Registrars at Worthing with me today to purchase the relevant shares. No attempt was made to dissuade him from making the visit. Indeed, the impression given to Mr. Brown was the same as that given on Tuesday i.e. Shell would be happy to see a resolution on the agenda as it recognizes the importance of the issues involved. Obviously the text of the resolution would be subject to normal constraints.
When we arrived at Lloyds TSB Registrars at 12.30 today, we were politely asked by an official to wait in a meeting room while enquiries were made. After about half an hour, the same gentlemen explained that your share broker division – Shareview Dealing - carries out Shell share trades on a Tuesday only and that as a consequence the deadline of shareholder names appearing on the relevant registrar by 6pm on Wednesday 1 March 2006 could not be met. The gentleman involved seemed uncomfortable with the information he had been asked to pass on. His hands were trembling when he said that his instructions were that Lloyds TSB Registrars was unwilling to bend the rules – your standard terms and conditions – to facilitate the purchase and registration of the shares in time to meet the deadline.
Under all of the circumstances, including your senior management roles in both companies, I am appealing to you to look into the situation as a matter of urgency. The fact that Zack Brown got on the first plane to London after the encouraging response from Mr. Edwards demonstrates how passionate he and his highly regarded organization are about this worthy cause which they, and apparently Shell, believes is deserving of consideration at the Royal Dutch Shell Plc AGM. As time is of the essence, I would be most grateful for your reply ASAP.
It would be unfortunate if anyone was left with a suspicion, perhaps unfairly, that while Shell was making encouraging noises about the prospect of a resolution on this matter, an apparently insurmountable obstacle, which is actually purely of an administrative nature, is being used to thwart Mr. Brown’s important mission.
Mr. Brown is waiting in London in the hope that your intervention will allow him to return to Worthing to purchase the shares. He has the required shareholder names and the funds. With your help and some goodwill, I am sure the effort could be made to allow his laudable objective to be achieved.
My telephone number is:
Mobile:
Email: john@purplex.net
Email address for Mr. Zack Brown: zbrown@pirg.org
Yours sincerely
John Donovan
FAXED LETTER FROM JOHN DONOVAN TO MR MICHIEL BRANDJES, COMPANY SECRETARY, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC: 24 FEBRUARY 2006
24th February 2006
Mr. Michiel Brandjes
Company Secretary
Royal Dutch Shell Plc
Shell Centre
London
Dear Mr. Brandies
URGENT
5 PAGES BY FAX ONLY TO:
FROM FAX NUMBER:
RE: Mr. Zack Brown, U.S. Public Interest Research Group
I attach for your information a copy of a self-explanatory letter sent by fax to Mr. Maarten van den Bergh yesterday evening. I am sure that your Mr Mark Edwards has advised you of this matter.
I am a Royal Dutch Shell shareholder and have a long standing interest in the activities of Shell. I was asked by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group to do what I can to assist in this matter.
Mr. Brown is still attempting to purchase shares via a broker but it seems that time has run out unless Lloyds TSB Registrars relent and bend their admin rules to allow Mr. Brown to purchase and registrar Royal Dutch Shell Plc shares within the deadline set by Shell.
Is it possible for you to intervene with Lloyds TSB Registrars bearing in mind the factors and issues set out in the attached letters?
Yours sincerely
John Donovan
cc. Mr Jeroen van der Veer, Chief Executive, Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
LETTER TO JOHN DONOVAN FROM BERT GROVES, SENIOR RELATIONSHIP MANAGER, LLOYDS TSB REGISTRARS: 24 FEBRUARY 2006
Dear Mr Donovan,
Royal Dutch Shell plc.
The Chairman's Office of Lloyds TSB Group plc has asked me to reply to your faxed letter addressed to our Chairman, Mr. Maarten van den Bergh dated 23rd February 2006 and received earlier today.
I would refer you to our telephone conversation at 2 p.m. today, in which I explained the role and function Lloyds TSB Registrars fulfil in the provision of registration services to Royal Dutch Shell pic (”RDS”). As Registrar we are responsible to RDS for the maintenance and administration of their register of members. This principal role is entirely separate to share dealing services which we offer as a secondary service to shareholders.
Our understanding is that Mr Edwards met with Mr Brown on 22nd February and Mr Edwards explained that it was pointless in Mr Brown visiting us in Worthing in person to purchase shares.
It is unusual for shareholders to visit our offices and the gentleman that dealt with the enquiry was correct in advising Mr Brown that we could only deal with any applications to purchase shares in accordance with our share dealing terms and conditions. We could not make any special facility available which breached these rules.
Mr Brown has contacted me by telephone this afternoon to arrange for the transfer of shares into various individuals names. I have now explained the procedures to him and provided the necessary form by email for him to print, complete and return to us duly signed and fully completed in order that the new holders can appear on the register by 6 p.m. Wednesday 01 March.
I do not feel that Lloyds TSB Registrars has placed any insurmountable obstacle of an administrative nature in the way of Mr Brown's attempts to make the necessary changes to the RDS share register by the deadline set by the company.
If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me using my direct line ……
Yours sincerely,
Bert Groves
Senior Relationship Manager
RESPONSE LETTER FROM JOHN DONOVAN
26 February 2006
Mr. Bert Groves
Senior Relationship Manager
Lloyds TSB Registrars
The Causeway, Worthing
West Sussex
BN99 6DA
5 PAGES BY FAX ONLY TO:
FROM FAX NUMBER:
Dear Mr. Groves
ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC & U.S. PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP
Thank you for your letter dated 24 February 2006. When I visited your offices on Thursday I was unaware that Mr Brown had not telephoned you in advance to make arrangements using the phone number which Royal Dutch Shell Plc Assistant Company Secretary, Mr Mark Edwards, had kindly provided to me during our first telephone conversation.
After drafting my subsequent letter to Mr. Maarten van den Bergh, I sent a copy to Mr Brown for his approval. He added a few words but made no alteration or comment in respect of my remark that no attempt was made to dissuade him from visiting your offices. Perhaps he had not noticed it or was keen for the fax to be sent without delay. I made the comment in good faith, but from what you say, I accept that it was unfounded.
Mr. Brown is passionate in a worthy cause and I guess that these apparent lapses were an example of a “can do” attitude for which Americans are renowned – a quality we are sometimes lacking. He was probably also anxious about achieving the objective of his visit to London – the sole purpose of his trip.
It is only fair to acknowledge that Mr. Edwards responded quickly, politely and directly to my faxed letter and fully answered the questions I had raised. It is however most unfortunate that Shell has not been prepared to go beyond making encouraging noises.
With regards to your Terms and Conditions, rules cannot cover every situation and can be bent if deemed appropriate in exceptional circumstances. They are made by man, not set in stone by our maker. What it comes down to is whether the plan to purchase shares by the deadline was a physical impossibility or was thwarted by an artificial technicality i.e. a stipulation that Shell shares trades are only processed by Lloyds TSB on a Tuesday.
With regards to our telephone conversation on Friday, I was left with the impression that Lloyds TSB Registrars are pointing the finger at Shell saying that Shell could change the 6pm 1 March deadline, while Shell is in turn passing the buck to Lloyds TSB Registrars and your Terms & Conditions.
Although everyone seems to agree that the fate of wild life in the Arctic Wilderness is deserving of consideration by shareholders at the 2006 Royal Dutch Shell Plc AGM, it now seems most unlikely to happen.
This is all extremely disappointing bearing in mind that Mr Brown had the funds, the shareholder names and a UK citizen available (me) to purchase the necessary shares when he was at the Shell Centre last Wednesday with Mr. Mark Edwards. This was a week before the 6pm 1 March deadline for submitting a resolution – a deadline imposed by Shell which claims that it is happy to see such a resolution on the agenda.
I have not heard anything from Zack Brown since Friday evening so I do not know what his plans are. He asked during our last conversation if I would be willing to travel to Worthing on Tuesday if he succeeds in transferring shares in time. I said that I would, but I doubt very much that he will be able to make arrangements by then. My guess is that he has returned to Washington DC.
My conscience is at rest in the knowledge that I have also done everything possible to try to help.
Shell has previously stated that it should be judged by its deeds, not by its words. It is not too late to go beyond encouraging noises bearing in mind the exceptional importance of the issues which are at stake.
I will be writing separately to Mr Maarten van den Bergh with whom my father and I corresponded when he was President of Royal Dutch Petroleum.
I would now like to turn to another matter; my fathers holding in The “Shell” Transport And Trading Company Plc. I attach his letters dated 21 June 2004 and 8 February 2006 to Lloyds TSB Registrars plus a response dated 13 February 2006. Basically he had a holding in Shell from 1994, but it was apparently reduced to “nil” for some unspecified reason on 20 July 2005, even though he had faxed the letter in June 2004 giving his new address. I suspect that your Terms and Conditions will be a factor in what has happened.
Yours sincerely
John Donovan
cc.
Mr. Maarten van den Bergh, Chairman, Lloyds TSB Banking Group PLC
Mr. Mark Edwards, Assistant Company Secretary, Royal Dutch Shell PLC
Mr. Jeroen van der Veer, Chief Executive, Royal Dutch Shell Plc
Mr Zack Brown, U.S. Public Interest Research Group
My telephone number: Mobile:
Email: john@shellnews.net
EMAIL TO JOHN DONOVAN FROM ZACK BROWN 27 FEBRUARY 2006
John – Thanks again for your help. You write in your letter that, “My conscience is at rest in the knowledge that I have also done everything possible to try to help.” I couldn’t agree more. I wouldn’t have made any progress at all without your help and hope that we can work together in the future (we’ve already begun planning for the 2007 AGM). If there is anything that U.S. PIRG can do to help you with your work, do not hesitate to ask. Thanks again, John.
Zack Brown
Arctic Wilderness Associate
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
218 D Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003
202-546-9707 - 202-546-2461 fax
zbrown@pirg.org - www.uspirg.org
RELATED ARTICLE BY ZACK BROWN
By Zack Brown
For the past seven years, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG) Education Fund has led a broad coalition of environmental groups, financial organizations, investors, religious groups, students, activists and citizens in a campaign targeting oil companies that have expressed interest in drilling in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
The campaign has made progress with BP and ConocoPhillips, who have stopped lobbying in support of drilling in the Arctic Refuge, and have stated that drilling in the area is not a priority.
Our campaign continues to push Chevron and ExxonMobil on the Arctic, but in 2006 most of our attention will focus on Royal Dutch Shell. In March of 2005, Royal Dutch Shell bid $44 million for rights to explore for oil off the coast of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. With the acquisition of these leases, Royal Dutch Shell is now part of the contentious and controversial debate regarding the future of America’s Arctic.
Our organizations have repeatedly urged oil companies operating in Alaska to stay out of the Arctic Refuge and have often filed shareholder resolutions as part of this effort. We are currently working with concerned shareholders on the filing of a shareholder resolution for the Royal Dutch Shell 2006 annual meeting.
Our goal is to engage shareholders to call on Royal Dutch Shell to prepare a report on the negative impacts drilling in the Arctic Refuge would have on the environment, human rights of the Gwich’in and Inupiat peoples, and the company’s reputation. We believe that drilling in the Refuge would negatively affect the human rights of the Gwich’in and Inupiat peoples; cause irreparable harm to migratory birds, musk oxen, polar bears and the 130,000 member caribou herd; and negatively affect the company’s reputation for years to come.
As a part of our effort, we are building a large pool of individual Royal Dutch Shell common stock investors. If you, or anyone you know owns Royal Dutch Shell common stock (RDS-A or RDS-B) please contact Zack Brown at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund prior to February 22nd at zbrown@pirg.org
Zack Brown
Arctic Wilderness Associate
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
218 D Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003
202-546-9707 - 202-546-2461 fax

APRIL 2004
A FORMER employee of Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. has filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the company and two of its officers with the National Labor Relations Commission. Complainant Maria Victoria C. Medina, former communications manager of Shell, was served notice of termination effective Dec. 15, 2003.
In a statement, Medina complained that Edgar O. Chua and Roberto S. Kanapi, both her supervisors when the termination notice was served, had summarily ignored her experience in the field of communications and public relations, and discriminated against her because of gender and age. Medina filed the case on Jan. 22. Two hearings had been set for March 16 and 23. On both days, the representatives for Shell, Chua and Kanapi failed to make an appearance. A third hearing is set Tuesday at 2 p.m.

Dear Mr Donovan,

My name is Caroline Buckingham and I am the Sales Executive with Asia Pulse Pty Ltd. I have noticed a large volume of Asia Pulse material on your web site www.shell2004.com/blog & have also noticed that you are offering free redistribution of our material via your web log.

I wish to draw your attention to the fact that Asia Pulse Pty Ltd reserves all rights including copyright in relation to services provided by it and that retransmission, dissemination or publication, whether in print, electronic or other means, is expressly forbidden without written authorisation from Asia Pulse Pty Ltd.

I am unable to find any record of any redistribution licence between Asia Pulse & your website or with anyone under the name of Alfred Donovan. Please let me know how you are accessing our material & of any agreements or authorisation that you have received to use Asia Pulse content.

Yours faithfully,
Caroline Buckingham
Asia Pulse Pty Ltd
www.asiapulse.com
Tel: +61-2-9322-8634
Fax: +61-2-9322-8639
Email: cbuckingham@asiapulse.com

RESPONSE EMAIL FROM ALFRED DONOVAN DATED 27 FEBRUARY 2006

Dear Ms Buckingham

I acknowledge receipt of your email dated 27 February. The articles have been obtained from the Internet. Our use of them is limited to articles mentioning Shell. They have been appearing for some time (since 2004) on my original website www.shellnews.net

My websites display a “Fair Use Notice” in regard to copyrighted material. I would draw your attention to the legal notice which states: “THERE ARE NO SUBSCRIPTION FEES OR ANY OTHER CHARGES: This is a non-commercial, non-profit website with no advertising.”

In this connection an illustrious three person panel of the World Intellectual Property Organisation reached a unanimous verdict in my favour in respect of the domain name royaldutchshellplc.com and the other Shell related domain names which were the subject of proceedings brought by Royal Dutch Shell. The panel consisted of (1) Mr Michael Cover, a British solicitor who specialises in Intellectual Property law; passing off, copyright etc; (2) Ms Diane Cabell, an eminent American lawyer, currently Corporate Counsel of Creative Commons and previously a senior lawyer at The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Havard Law School. Daniel J Gervais is a Canadian Professor of Technology Law. Professor Gervais held senior legal positions at the WIPO in Geneva for several years and is the author of a host of major publications relating to the Internet and associated law. He acted as the presiding panellist in the WIPO Shell case.

Having read my submission, the panel accepted “there is no evidence that Respondent’s actions are for “commercial gain”.

In other words, the expert panel decision in August 2005 accepted the fact that my website is operated entirely on a non-profit making.

Hence the “Fair Use Notice” has been validated by the WIPO panel decision.

Yours sincerely
Alfred Donovan

Selene H. Costello Esq.
Dow Jones & Company
200 Liberty Street,
9″‘ Floor New York,
NY 10281 (
212)416-2197 Fax (212) 416-2524
selene.costello@dovvjones.com
December 15,2005 Via First Class Mail

Letter to:
Mr. Alfred Donovan
847A Second Avenue
New York,
NY 10017
Dear Mr. Donovan:
Re: Unauthorized Use of The Wall Street Journal head cuts on www.royaldutchshellplc.com

I write on behalf of Dow Jones & Company, publisher of The Wall Street Journal newspaper and other publications.

It has recently come to our attention that you have copied and displayed head cut illustrations from The Wall Street Journal newspaper on your website located at www.royaldutchshellplc.com.

As of the present date, head cut illustrations of Mr. Jeroen van der Veer, Mr. Jorma Ollila and yourself appear on the website without our permission.

As you may know, Dow Jones owns all copyrights, trademarks, and other proprietary rights in The Wall Street Journal. Copyright law prohibits, among other things, reproduction, public display and distribution of copyrighted materials without the permission of the copyright owner — in this case, Dow Jones.

Under no circumstances are you permitted to use images or other content from The Wall Street Journal without Dow Jones’ permission. The attribution provided on the website that states “Sketch courtesy of the Wall Street Journal” is insufficient to avoid these copyright concerns.

This letter puts you on notice that we regard the above-referenced content to be an infringement of our intellectual property rights. Accordingly, we ask that you immediately and permanently remove the unauthorized content from your website, and refrain from unauthorized use of our intellectual property in the future. Please provide written assurances within seven (7) days that you will comply with these requests.
Dow Jones expressly reserves all of its rights and remedies in connection with this matter.

Very truly yours,
Signed
Selene Costello

Response Letter from Alfred Donovan to Selene Costello: 4 January 2006

Dear Ms Costello

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated December 15, 2005. My son John has spoken to you today on my behalf when you confirmed that no further letters have been mailed to me on this matter at this point in time.

As you may be aware, I supplied a likeness to The Wall Street Journal in the form of a photograph of me from which the sketch of me was drawn. It was my photograph and my likeness in relation to an article about me. Without my photograph, no sketch could have been drawn. Under the circumstances it seems rather inappropriate on the part of Dow Jones to raise the matter, particularly in such a threatening way against “an 88-year-old British army veteran” – the description of me given in the article when it suited The Wall Street Journal to portray me in a sympathetic light.

The attribution you have quoted was displayed in the knowledge that The Wall Street Journal staff member who authored the article, Mr Chip Cummins, has been a visitor to the website before and after the sketch was featured and raised no complaint. Chip was extremely keen on obtaining an exclusive on the domain name story and we were pleased to co-operate when he requested a photograph. John has spoken and corresponded with Chip many times.

It therefore seemed proper to display an acknowledgement given the friendly trusting co-operative relationship which was established. In view of your letter, the acknowledgement now reads: The Wall Street Journal sketch is reproduced in accordance with our “Fair Use Notice”. The notice is prominently displayed with all three head cut illustrations mentioned in your letter.

With regard to the “Fair Use Notice”, I would draw your attention to the following legal notice also displayed on the gateway webpage: “This is a non-commercial site: no subscription charges and no advertising.” An illustrious three person panel of the World Intellectual Property Organisation reached a unanimous verdict in my favour in respect of the domain name royaldutchshellplc.com and the other Shell related domain names which were the subject of proceedings brought by Royal Dutch Shell (and the subject of The Wall Street Journal article).

The panel consisted of (1) Mr Michael Cover, a British solicitor who specialises in Intellectual Property law; passing off, copyright etc; (2) Ms Diane Cabell, an eminent American lawyer, currently Corporate Counsel of Creative Commons and previously a senior lawyer at The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Havard Law School. Daniel J Gervais is a Canadian Professor of Technology Law. Professor Gervais held senior legal positions at the WIPO in Geneva for several years and is the author of a host of major publications relating to the Internet and associated law. He acted as the presiding panellist in the WIPO Shell case. Having read my submission, the panel accepted “there is no evidence that Respondent’s actions are for “commercial gain”.

In other words, the expert panel decision in August 2005 accepted the fact that my website is operated entirely on a non-profit making. Hence the “Fair Use Notice” displayed since the launch of the site has been validated by the WIPO panels decision.

The background circumstances in respect of the three head cuts illustrations are different. I have already dealt with the circumstances in my case – the sketch was based on my source material – my photograph and likeness - in an article about me. The circumstances are obviously different in respect of Mr Jeroen van der Veer and Mr Jorma Ollila, but all three are in any event covered by the Fair Use Notice.

If you so wish, I will happily publish any reasonable acknowledgement or confirmation of permission, but this offer should not be taken as acceptance that any infringement has taken place. It is merely an attempt to settle the matter amicably.

My son asked whether Shell had brought this matter to the attention of The Wall Street Journal or Dow Jones & Company and that you replied that this was not pertinent. I can understand that this would not be a matter of interest to you but if there is further correspondence, I would be grateful for confirmation on this point.

Yours sincerely
Alfred Donovan

Update 28 February 2006. No action had been taken on this matter by Dow Jones despite the threat of a further letter which supposedly was to be sent to us. The relevant drawings can be found on the following webpage: www.RoyalDutchShellGroup.com

National Public Radio
Morning Edition
March 19, 2004
Analysis: Royal Dutch Shell restates its oil reserves
Edition: 10:00-11:00 AM
BOB EDWARDS, host:
The troubles for Royal Dutch Shell keep growing. The price of Shell stock slid further yesterday after the company again announced that its estimated oil and gas reserves are lower than presumed and that restatement is much smaller than the one in January. NPR's Jim Zarroli reports.
JIM ZARROLI reporting:
Shell was supposed to release its annual report today, but yesterday the company announced the report would be delayed by two months. The reason was the company had found another mistake in its oil reserve estimates. It said the mistake was technical in nature, having to do with Securities and Exchange Commission reporting requirements. But it resulted in the company having about 250 million fewer barrels of proven oil reserves than it thought during 2002. The company also lowered its 2003 estimate by 220 million.
At a news conference made available over the Internet yesterday, Shell officials seem contrite. Malcolm Brinded is the company's managing director. He called this restatement `a surprise and a disappointment.'
Mr. MALCOLM BRINDED (Shell): This isn't an exact science but it is up to us to make sure that we get it right and, in particular, that we strictly adhere to the SEC guidance. We can and we should've done better.
ZARROLI: Normally, an announcement like this might not attract much atten