Add <p></p> tags inside blockquote blocks to fix validation errors

1 files changed, 6 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/english/News/2022/20220807.wml b/english/News/2022/20220807.wml
index 58e8732531e..7719fa0890e 100644
--- a/english/News/2022/20220807.wml
+++ b/english/News/2022/20220807.wml
@@ -19,12 +19,14 @@ In its decision the panel noted:
 <p>
 
 <blockquote>
+<p>
 [...] the disputed domain name is identical to the DEBIAN mark, which carries a high risk
 of implied affiliation with the Complainant. [...] Given that the Complainant prominently
 describes Debian on its homepage as a 'community' and not just an operating system,
 [the .community] suffix actually reinforces that the disputed domain name will resolve to a
 site operated or endorsed by [Debian]. The disputed domain name contains no critical or
 other terms to dispel or qualify that false impression.
+</p>
 </blockquote>
 
 <p>
@@ -32,6 +34,7 @@ The panel went on to observe:
 </p>
 
 <blockquote>
+<p>
 The evidence submitted by the Complainant shows that some posts present the DEBIAN
 mark together with information about a notorious sex cult, notorious sex offenders, and
 enslavement of women, and one post displays photographs of physical branding allegedly on
@@ -40,6 +43,7 @@ information are contrived and the scale of this information is not merely incide
 website. In the Panel’s view, these posts are deliberately intended to create a false
 association between the DEBIAN trademark and offensive phenomena and thereby tarnish
 the mark.
+</p>
 </blockquote>
 
 <p>
@@ -47,6 +51,7 @@ and further concluded that:
 </p>
 
 <blockquote>
+<p>
 nothing in the Debian Social Contract or elsewhere indicates that the Complainant has ever
 consented to the type of false associations with its mark published by the respondent on its
 website. The Respondent points out that the DEBIAN mark is registered only in respect of
@@ -54,6 +59,7 @@ software. However, while the relevant posts attack members of the Complainant wh
 available DEBIAN software, rather than the software itself, these posts use the mark in
 combination with the disputed domain name in a way that intentionally seeks to create false
 associations with the mark itself.
+</p>
 </blockquote>
 
 <p>