Maybe Oral Exams for Israel Patent Attorneys Should be Scrapped?

July 31, 2011

After a two-year internship working for a licensed Israel Patent Attorney, a trainee patent attorney in Israel must take a written exam that tests patent drafting skills and an oral exam before a panel of three. The oral exam is supposed to test knowledge of IP Law.

The Exams are held twice a year and there is generally a high failure rate in the oral exam. Failing once or twice due to nerves or lack of preparation is reasonable, but there seems to be a large number of candidates that seem to keep failing.

For the past couple of years I’ve been getting a crop of thank-yous from successful candidates that have found this blog helpful in reviewing the case-law.  I also hear complaints from unsuccessful candidates who feel the system is unfair.

A candidate who knows all the black letter law, the regulations, the Patent Office circulars, the major decisions and recent case-law for patents, plant-patents, trademarks, designs and copyright and who has a fair understanding of US, European and Far East patent law, should get through without any difficulty.

The problem is that hesitating or not knowing some fairly archaic or obscure regulation can result in failure. The system lacks transparency. Different candidates are asked different questions. Firms sending more than one candidate are sometimes surprised by who passes and who fails. As there is no record, there is no appeal.

Because of the close-knit nature of the profession, it frequently happens that a candidate has worked for one or other of the judging panel and a change in judges is required. Different judges will react differently. There appears to be some subjectivity in the procedure.

I note that in the US and in Europe, candidates sit written theory exams. With written exams, particularly short-answers or multiple choice type questions, candidates can be tested more thoroughly on more material. This is how attorneys-at-law are examined.

One could have clear requirements for passing, such as, say, 80% correct answers.

Such a system would be fairer and remove much of the complaints – whether justified or not – from candidates who feel hard done by.


Israel Patent Office Publishes Report on 2010 Activity

July 29, 2011

The Israel Patent Office has just published a report covering its activity in 2010.

The report, in Hebrew, is available from here: http://www.justice.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/C6ACFC67-FFF0-4D16-A8C3-DCFD0154D82E/0/2010.pdf

There are 45 pages of statistical data that contains few surprises, bound in a blue cover with a slightly corny lightbulb image.

Much of the comparative material, showing how the IPO compares with patent offices in other jurisdictions, and the number of patents filed per GDP and per population are found in the OECD report, on WIPO’s website, and in a paper I wrote together with Jeremy Ben David and which was published in WIPR a couple of months ago. Nevertheless, the report is comprehensive and compares favorably to the odd table or graph that the patent office has traditionally published.

There is some data on oppositions that has never been presented before and also comprehensive ranking tables showing where incoming filings originate.

The document carries two introductions, one from newly installed commissioner, Adv. Asa Kling, and one from his predecessor Dr Meir Noam. We weren’t surprised to see that each commissioner has lauded his predecessor / successor. However, since the document relates to the end of Dr Noam’s tenure, and before Adv. Kling took over as commissioner, this seems appropriate, if a little tiresome. Actually to be fair, 2010 was a good year for Dr Noam, whose achievements were many.

Of note, there is apparently on going consultation between the patent office and the Ministry of Justice regarding a Design Law to replace the 1924 Ordinance inherited from the British mandate, which is still in force.

We were surprised to learn that Brazil is a major filer or design registrations in Israel. Indeed 109 of the 423 design registrations originating from abroad came from Brazil, ahead of everywhere else including the US. Apparently, this is due almost exclusively to H Stern, a Brazilian jewelry firm with many outlets in Israel. Apart from jewelry, Israel design registrations were filed mostly for clothing, building materials, ornaments and food containers. In total, 1622 design applications were filed, which is, however, less than in any of the years 2005-2009.

There were a total of 8017 trademark applications filed into Israel in 2010, which is less than any of the years 2005-2009 and nearly 2500 less than 2008.

Protocol Madrid for the multi-national registration of trademarks came into force in Israel in September 2010, and in the last quarter of the year, some 463 filings were made into Israel via the protocol, and 37 international applications originating in Israel were filed.

In total, some 7266 patent applications were filed in Israel in 2010, which is up from 6780 in 2009, but still below the 2006-2008 levels which peaked, in 20o7, at 8064.  Most of these applications were Paris/PCT filings or divisional applications, claiming priority from earlier applications. The number of new applications first filed in Israel was 1044, which is the smallest number for a decade. It seems that more and more Israeli applicants are first filing in the US, either as regular applications, or are filing US provisional applications.

There was a lot of patents examined and allowed, but problems in publication delayed them issuing and probably contributed to the low number of oppositions filed, which, at 22, is up from 2009 when only 20 were filed, and from 2001 when 21 were filed, but much lower than the other years of this millennium.  We suspect however, that a number of cases examined in 2010 only published in 2011 and there will be some additional oppositions (indeed, I am handling one such case together with Adv Lewin from our office).

Some 41% of patent filings into Israel are computer/electronics related. 31% are chemistry (mostly pharmaceuticals), 17% biotech and 11% mechanical or telecommunications related. (I am not sure why telecommunications is related to mechanical and not to computer/electronics. I suspect it is an anomaly dating back to the mechanical telegraph or to the telephone made of two cups connected by a taut string). The Israel Patent Office receives a disproportionate amount of high-tech and pharmaceutical patent filings compared to those in traditional industries. This seems to reflect the fields where Israeli industries are perceived by competitors as being a threat.

In the end of 2009, Dr Noam initiated a fast track for ‘green’ patent applications. Some 22 attempts to have applications recognized as green were made during the year, and of these, 16 were accepted for the fast track, and 6 were refused. In the pie-chart summarizing this information, the 262 degree slice was coloured green, and the remaining 98 degrees was coloured orange. The significance of this colour was not apparent.Israel is a noticeable user of the PCT system in absolute terms, and is the largest user in terms of population. I suspect that this is because of the small local market, and Israel’s favorable trade relations with the US, Europe and the far East.

It seems that IP activity in Israel, both from local entities and from foreign applicants was down in 2010 in patents, designs and trademarks. This does not come as a surprise,  as we’ve felt the drop in work. It is little comfort to know that Israel weathered the recession better than many other economies, and that patent, design and trademark filings are down everywhere, except for China.

However, we note that the patent office has been aggressively attacking backlogs and examination pendencies are down as well.

We hope that the 2011 data will be more positive!


Report: Conference on IP in Jewish Law

July 20, 2011

On 26 June 2011, JMB, Factor & Co. Israel’s International Patent Attorneys, together with Yad HaRav Herzog, a non-profit organization that publishes the Talmudic Encyclopaedia and variant texts of the Talmud from manuscripts and first editions, co-hosted a full day conference on Intellectual Property in Jewish Law.

The program featured a star-studded cast of leading IP scholars, authorities on Jewish Law and academics specializing in Hebraic Law and Jewish History.

Knesset Member Isaac Herzog spoke about his grandfather, the late Chief Rabbi Itzhak Isaac Herzog’s multifaceted legacy, and Rabbi Professor Israel Steinberg, Director of Yad HaRav Herzog, Israel Prize Laureate and world authority on medical ethics welcomed the participants.

In the first session, chaired by Rabbi David Fuld, Rabbinic Judge Zalman Nechemia Goldberg, the Former President of Israel’s  Supreme Rabbinic Court, known by his acronym haGarzan, (the machete), due to the sharpness of his intellect, argued that the basis for payment for use of a creation in Jewish Law is simply that one should pay where on benefits from another’s toil. Developing the possibility of conditioning a sale discussed in Talmudic literature, he went on to suggest that this contractual relationship was similar to software licenses and provided a traditional Jewish equivalent to modern copyright. Another former President of the Supreme Rabbinic Court, Rav Shlomo Daichowski addressed the issue of ownership of intangibles from a different perspective and also paid tribute to Rabbi Uri Dasberg, tragically killed in a car crash, and in whose memory the event was dedicated.

Rabbi Professor Yehiel Kaplan of Haifa University respectfully showed the inadequacy of the former approaches for addressing the complexities of modern IP issues, and Rabbi Yisrael Rozen, the head of the Tzomet Institute, a non-profit, public research institute dedicated to seamlessly merging Hallachic Judaism with Modern Life, went on to suggest that rather than creating a new Hallachic wheel, the Rabbinic leadership should recognize Knesset legislation on civil issues such as intellectual property, as religiously binding civil ordinances (takanot) rather than recreating the wheel.

In the plenum on comparative law, Dr Roman Cholij, a UK Trademark Attorney with doctorates from both the Vatican and from Oxford University spoke about IP in Canon Law and alluded to the story of the Irish St. Columba (521-597 CE). When visiting his former teacher St. Finnen of Clonard, Columba copied a beautifully illustrated psalter. Finnen asked that the copy Columba made, be returned to him, and when Columba refused, Finnen took his case to King Dermott.

Prof. Amir Khourie of Tel Aviv University eloquently discussed intellectual property in Islamic countries and in the context of  Sharaya, Islamic law.

Rabbi Prof. Gershon Bacon, a historian from Bar Ilan University traced the roots of intellectual property back to the Bible, citing Jeremiah 23:30 where the prophet curses false prophets who plagiarized him. He went on to show that from the earliest times, the rabbis were careful to acknowledge the authorship of ideas. which is an acknowledgment of moral rights.

Copyright per se became an issue with printing, and developed in Jewish law to protect publishers and to guarantee a return on investment by providing a limited monopoly, typically 20 years, by a ban published at the front of the book, that threatens exclusion from the community to copiers. He presented an Italian example of this type of ban from 1620, nearly a century earlier than the statute of Anne (1709).

Rabbi Prof. Nachum Rakover, an Israel Prize laureate, who published a book on Copyright in Jewish Law (Hebrew) about 20 years ago, developed this theme further, but argued that from its earliest days the purpose of such bans was to encourage the creation and dissemination of knowledge by compensating publishers and authors, rather than to create private wealth.

Leading US Copyright Authority, Prof. David Nimmer, and Prof. Neil Netanel, both from UCLA, lectured using material from their forthcoming book: Copyright in Jewish Law from Maimonides to Microsoft. They  demonstrated that rabbinic decisions on copyright through the ages have been influenced by the corresponding secular law.

Although the program was heavily focused on copyright, other types of IP were also discussed. I gave a brief overview of patents offering solutions to challenges in various areas of Jewish law, including ritual slaughter, correct reading of the Five Books of Moses with the cantillation via projection of notes and vowels onto the parchment of the Torah scroll, technologies for enabling usage of electrical appliances on the Sabbath and high density burial solutions for better usage of land. I also discussed trademark controversies of Jewish interest and showed how the Rabbinic Court of the Orthodox Union in the US uses trademark law to prevent foods from being illicitly passed off as Kosher and how the various parties in the Bobov Hassidic leadership inheritance struggle tried to use trademark applications filed with the USPTO and the Israel Patent Office to strengthen their positions.

Rabbi Prof. Steven Resnikoff of De Paul University discussed how Jewish law relates to various controversial areas of patenting such as the gene patent controversy in the US. He noted that the challengers of Myriad’s patents for breast cancer transmitting genes were represented pro bono by members of Yeshiva University’s Cardozo Law School. He related briefly to patenting brain stem cell research, which is controversial in Europe and in the US due to moral issues. However, in contrast to the Catholic approach which sees life as commencing with conception,  in Jewish Law, life is generally considered as starting with tissue formation some 40 days later, so the issue is generally considered less problematic by the rabbis.

Prof. Jeremy Phillips concluded the rather full program by discussing trade secrets in the Talmud. The event attracted some 200 participants including lawyers, patent attorneys, Rabbis and academics.

I take this opportunity to thank the staff of Yad HaRav Herzog, of JMB, Factor & Co., the speakers and the participants for maing this happen. We particularly thank Rabbi Dr David Fuld for his support and Chaim Falk who put me in touch with Yad HaRav Herzog and did some fundraising,  We note that his late father, Prof. Zeev Falk published an earlier paper on IP in Jewish Law in 1946.

The event was held in memory of Rabbi Uri Dasberg who was tragically killed in a car crash a month earlier. Back in 1996, Rabbi Dasberg’s daughter Effie and husband Yaron were murdered by Arab terrorists in a drive by shooting. Rabbi Dasberg adopted and brought up his orphaned grandchildren.  Rabbi Dasberg was well-known for his work editing the Halakhic journal Tchumim, the Talmudic Encyclopedia and the mainstream Shabbat b’Shabbato weekly Torah pamphlet widely distributed in Synagogues across Israel.

In his memory and sorely missing his help, I will endeavour to upload transcripts and videos of the lectures in Hebrew and English, and photos of the event onto the Internet shortly and to publish the conference proceedings as a book. Articles and other contributions from the participants of the event and other interested parties will be considered for inclusion.


Madrid – One Year On.

July 17, 2011

The Israel Chapter of the AIPPI held a meeting to discuss the effects of Israel joining Madrid Protocol, one year on.

The event, held at the American Zionists House in the middle of Tel Aviv, attracted some 40 participants, mostly patent attorneys and lawyers.

The new Commissioner of Patents, Assa Kling, spoke briefly about his first six weeks in office. He informed us that there is a certain inertia in the civil service that contrasted with private practice. He explained that he was meeting all 170 or so Israel Patent and Trademark Office staff members individually at least for a few minutes. He thanked the various senior staff members for their help in easing him into the position, and thanked his predecessor, Dr Meir Noam for his support, pointing out that despite Dr Noam’s term of office formally finishing before Commissioner Kling’s term started, Dr Noam had voluntarily spent large amounts of time helping him get up to speed and easing him into the job.

Commissioner Kling looked somewhat uncomfortable as he spoke. It could have been nerves, but I suspect he was simply suffering from over-dress, as he wore a charcoal suit and tie, whilst the rest of us, were rather more informally dressed, with even the chairperson of  the Israel Branch of the AIPPI and thus host of the event, Adv. Tal Band, was wearing an open-necked short-sleeve shirt.

Commissioner Kling was followed by Head of Trademark Dept. Ms Nurit Maoz who provided some valuable statistics regarding incoming trademark filings. It seems that there are more marks being filed in more classes as a result of Israel’s accession to the Madrid Protocol, with an increase of 22% from 7845 to 10,029  over the period 1 September 2010 to 30 June 2011, as compared to the same period a year earlier. This represents lots of protection for applicants and filing fees for the government. However, with multi-class filings now allowed, there has been a drop in the number of separate applications filed from 7845 to 6054 – i.e. 23%.

Furthermore, over this period, some 30% of applications being filed are filed directly under Madrid, and this has risen to about 50% in recent months, so the past few months have seen a steep drop in filings via local patent attorneys.

Not all is gloom and doom for the practitioners though. A number of applications have been rejected on substantive grounds and responding to office actions requires local representation. There is a lag between filing and examination, with the first Madrid filings having been made 9 months ago, and the first office actions issuing six months later. It seems therefore, as predicted, that though there is less bread and butter trademark filing work, this is partially offset by a slight increase in prosecution, and eventually there is likely to be more trademark litigation and enforcement in Israel, as there are more marks in more classes leading to increased potential for conflict.

A practitioner from a firm having both local and US presence and who thus had more experience of trademark filing and prosecution around the world under Madrid gave us the benefit of her insight. I shan’t publish her name and photo though as she illustrated her talk with stock cartoons downloaded over the Internet that apparently hadn’t been paid for. It seems that though experienced in trademarks, her knowledge of copyright issues is somewhat lacking. Her talk was entertaining though, not only due to the cartoons.


Counterfeit Tommy Hilfiger Clothing Seized by Israel Police

July 13, 2011

A clothing store called North Star, situated in Dvoriya, an Arab village in the Galilee, sold jeans, shirts and other items of clothing bearing the Tommy Hilfiger logo. The police raided the shop and confiscated 73 items of clothing that Tommy Hilfiger’s representative deemed to be fraudulent substandard articles.

Hilfiger sued claiming trademark infringement, passing off and unjust enrichment, requesting statutory damages of NIS 100,000.

However, the vendor Tsuna Shahidi claimed to have purchased the garments from wholesale market vendors in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and not to have been aware or interested in the designer logo and requested no fine, or a minimal symbolic fine.

The goods were purchased for a total of NIS 1400 which is an average of NIS 20 (about US $5-6) a piece. Original designer Tommy Hilfiger goods retail in Israel for 10 times that price.

In ruling, the judge, Deputy President Isaak Cohen of the Nazareth District Court considered the selection of so may garments all showing the same designer label and all purchased so very cheaply as undermining the vendor’s claim of ignorance. Furthermore, citing various precedents and the relevant textbooks,  he established that ignorance and lack of intent was not a defense, and that the standards of equitable behavior required were objective and not subjective, so the actual intention of the vendor is irrelevant.

In ruling, the Judge noted that there wasn’t proven damages from passing off, but noted that copyright infringement was also grounds of statutory damages. Using judicial discretion he ruled damages of NIS 50,000 and legal fees of a further NIS 10,000. Finally, Judge Cohen gave an injunction against Shahidi, preventing him from selling goods with the Hiflinger logo.

The case: T.A. 26614-07-10, Tommy Hilfinger et al. vs. Shehady.


Israel Court rules that ‘Dr Relax’ neither infringes Dr Gav nor Relaxon trademarks

July 5, 2011

Night Sleep Center Plus LTD has marketed beds under the name Dr Relax.

Two other bed manufacturers, Relaxon (Israel) the best Furniture in the World LTD and The Center for Health LTD having trademarks Relaxon and Dr Gav (Gav is Hebrew for back) respectively, sued for both trademark infringement and passing off. 

 In an interesting and well-reasoned ruling, Professor Ofer Groshkopf, a law professor at Tel Aviv University who serves as a Tel Aviv District Court Judge ruled that Dr Relax does not infringe either mark.

Simply put, he considers that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks, and pointed out that ‘Dr’ is a general indication of medicine and academic research and relax is a general term.

Both words are generic and their combination neither sounds like nor looks like either mark. Since there is not confusing similarity, there is no trademark infringement. Furthermore there  is no passing off.

Judge Grushkopf also noted the somewhat similar image of someone reclining that appears in both Dr Gav and in Dr Relax, but considers the different positioning of the graic element, its generic nature, and the different colour schemes were insufficient to create a likelihood of confusion.  He also rejected a survey performed by the plaintiff as not providing the correct indication of confusing similarity in a purchasing environment.

Judge Grushkopf was impressed by the fact that neither plaintiff sued when the defendant first started using the Dr Relax brand, but only did so some time later following other disputes between the parties. This was seen as undermining the plaintiffs’ claims of inequitable behaviour.

It transpired that when the brand Dr Relax was first used, six years earlier, Night Sleep Center Plus LTD created a confusingly similar catalogue to that used by Relaxon (Israel) the Best Furniture in the World LTD, which is the local representative of Elran, a Canadian company.  Furthermore, evidence was provided that a sales person had indicated to a private investigator that the Dr Relax products were identical.

For each of these separate passing off actions, the Judge awarded statutory damages of NIS 100,000 to Relaxon, but did not consider these ‘sins at birth’ were sufficient justification to prevent the now successful competitor from using the brand 6 years later. 

Judge Grosskopf noted that both complainants had filed oppositions to the Dr Relax trademark application, but indicated that he would not relate to its registerability.

 In an interesting aside, Judge Grosskopf argued the minority opinion in a Supreme Court precedent concerning McDonalds and suggested that he would be inclined to allow a portmanteau mark such as “Mac King” for hamburgers, despite clearly being inspired by Mc Donalds and Burger King. In this case, where neither Dr nor Relax are distinctive in and of themselves, the issue is different.

A final point worthy of note: the Judge started his ruling with a preface discussing the Biblical prohibition of mixtures,  such as wool and linen combinations (shaatnez) and growing vegetables in a vineyard (Klai haKerem). He quoted Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:9-11 and the commentary of Rashi and Nachmanides comments thereon.   After pointing out that there was no Biblical injunction against mixed trademarks he went on to rule that not only did the Heavenly Court have no problem with such marks, but the Terrestial Court didn’t either!

COMMENT

We note that in this ruling Judge Grosskopf is taking a conservative position with regards to trademarks, and is simply looking at likelihood of confusion. There have been various judicial constructions such as dilution that he is ignoring.

The Case: T.A. 9143-11-08 Eliyahu & Sons LTD and Others vs.Night Sleep Center (2000) Plus LTD and Others, before Judge Professor Grushkopf (22 June 2011.)


Contributory copyright infringement in Israel

July 4, 2011

In an important recent decision, the Israel Supreme Court has recognized contributory infringement in copyright. The specific case relates to pirate textbooks available from a student society on campus that is supported by a political party. The Court of First Instance found the publisher directly guilty of copyright infringement and the political party and the university guilty of contributory infringement; a judicial tort previously available for patent infringement only.

On Appeal, the Israel Supreme Court upheld the concept of contributory copyright infringement and aiding and abetting infringement, but in the specific case, found the university not responsible. The issue of fair use, particularly in academia is also discussed. Although the case in question relates to book publishing, the decision is expected to have repercussions concerning the downloading and reproduction of digital data.

The Israel Labour Party subsidises a student club called “Teh Ofek” (Horizon Cell) at the Mt Scopus Campus of the Hebrew University. As an incentive to get students involved, they provided cheap versions of a course textbook titled “Traditional Japan”. The bootleg copies were sold under the name “Readings” for NIS 10, whereas the official version sold by the publisher, Shocken, retailed at NIS 89. Shocken sued the publisher-distributor – a Yaakov Cohen, the Labour Party and the Hebrew University.

The Court of First Instance applied the judicial doctrine of contributory infringement recognized in Rav Bareach, a patent case where an importer of two parts of a three-part crook lock for the steering wheel of a car was found guilty of contributory infringement. Without this concept, the patentee would have had to sue each and every purchaser for literal infringement. With this doctrine, the importer could be sued, enabling effective enforcement. The court also ruled that there was a breach of legal obligation. There was no proof of how many copies were sold. Instead, NIS 20,000, the maximum statutory damages under the old copyright law was awarded to Shocken. The Court divided this up as 40% to be paid by Mr Cohen, 30% by the Labour Party and 30% by the Hebrew University.

On appeal, both the Hebrew University challenged the doctrine of contributory infringement arguing that it was not in the public interest to rule sweeping liability for universities, Internet Service Providers and forums for copyright infringement that takes place on their real or virtual premises. Furthermore, the University also argued that it did not gain any financial benefit from their ‘contribution’. As to the breach of legal obligation, the University argued that this tort could only be applied where there is no statutory punishment, which is not the case for copyright infringement. Furthermore, the university argued that they were unaware of the specific infringement and therefore could not be held responsible. Finally, they submitted that distributing course material at cost to students was fair use.

The Labour Party agreed with the university’s legal arguments regarding contributory infringement and breach of law and also argued that there was no evidence that the book was published using its photocopiers or with its financial assistance. The publishers argued that the university library held 11 copies of the book which was required reading for some 370 students thereby encouraging them to make illicit copies. They further argued that there was trespass under Section 13a of the law of chattels, claimed that the fair use doctrine invoked by the university was an inadmissible widening of their defense and also pointed out that the use was financial not academic.

The Court of Appeal found some support for the doctrine of contributory copyright infringement with regard to the requirement for venues such as wedding halls and theatres to check that DJs have licenses from copyright societies, explained that the doctrine was well established in the US, and cited a range of Israeli academics including Tony Greenman, Guy Pessach, Neil Netanel and Michael Birnhack who have discussed the issue with reference to the New Copyright Law 2009, and who believe that there is room for this tort. Then the Supreme Court pontificated a little about the balance of interests between the public and private domain and the need to encourage creativity by preventing commercial copying and thereby providing a financial incentive. In so doing, provided there was direct infringement, the court ruled that in the interest of efficiency it was legitimate to sue the conduits of the copying.

In ruling, the Supreme Court found that the Labour Party benefited from this incentive to students to join the club and aided and abetting the infringement and should be punished. With regards to the university, the court did not clarify the boundaries of fair use for study, nor did they rule how much of a book could fairly be copied. However, they did rule that there was no evidence of specific knowledge, that the university was not obligated to police all clubs and societies, the internet and student email accounts. In dismissing the contributory infringement charges against the university, the court saw itself as no longer required to rule on the fair use defense thus avoiding ruling on both the issue of widening the defense and the issue of itself. Thee Court absolved the Hebrew University of Guilt, upheld the 40% liability to Mr Cohen and awarded the remaining 60% to the Labour Party. Shocken were obliged to pay NIS 10,000 to the Hebrew University to cover their legal costs.

The Case: Appeal to the Supreme Court 5977/07 by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem vs. Yaakov Cohen, the Labour Party and Schocken Publishing House against the ruling by Y Shapira in T.A. 6306/04 from 17 May 2007.

The case was heard on 15 November 2010 by Deputy President Rivlin, and Justices Jubran and Danziger, and the ruling issued on 20 June 2011.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 90 other followers