News & Media

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

Although you might not think often about protecting your trademark rights in Brazil, you need to – even if you don’t yet have a single Brazilian customer.

Scammers are constantly looking for ways to profit off of the work of others. Anyone with a computer and a little bit of know-how can start skimming your customers. Even worse, with just a little effort, they can dive in and steal an entire international market from you.

Pinterest learned this the hard way. It neglected getting its trademark registered in the UK, so some enterprising company filed for it instead. In the end, Pinterest tried to seize it back, but it lost. (http://www.xbiz.com/articles/175922/pinterest) An unknown company was first in line to register the PINTEREST trademark, so Pinterest was left with the option of not having trademark rights in the UK, or buying those rights from a company that looks like it was created solely for no other reason than blocking Pinterest from exercising its rights there.

What makes you think this can’t happen to your brand?

Fortunately there is a really easy way to get global protection – the Madrid System. Under this System, trademarks registered in any signatory country are easily recognized in all other member countries. There is a simple process where you can rely on your existing rights in any member country to export it to any other member country. This process is extremely cheap, simple, and fast. Nevertheless, many brands fail to take advantage of it. If you have an existing trademark, you should consult with a trademark attorney immediately to internationalize your brand as far and wide as possible.

So can’t you just do that in Brazil?

Unfortunately not, Brazil is not yet a member of the Madrid system.

In monitoring these issues globally, we have noticed that Brazil is a hot spot for this “trademark squatting” scheme. The crooks run out, register an already-used trademark from another country, and just wait for them to notice. By then, the price to fix the problem is quite dear.

The honest business only notices once it tries to enter the Brazilian market. Then, they see that they have three choices – forget about Brazil, pay ransom to buy their own trademark back, or file a court case in Brazil. All of these choices are expensive. Brazil is a huge and growing economy. Would you want to just write it off? The ransom? That is a little cheaper, but it could still cost five to six figures. A court case in Brazil? Brazilian lawyers are no less expensive than their American counterparts. But, the Brazilian court system is much slower and much less predictable than the U.S. system. You could wind up tied up for years with no satisfaction.

The good news? Brazil is joining the Madrid system in 2018! So should you just wait until then to get protected there? Absolutely not!

Even if Brazil joins on schedule, do you feel comfortable waiting two years to protect your brand in the eighth largest economy in the world? Do you think that enterprising scam artists don’t know that they only have two years in which to jump on your brand?

Given the latest announcement, I predict a “land rush” of fraudulent Brazilian registrations before you have a chance to protect your brand. It is more important than ever to protect your brand in Brazil now. Getting a trademark application on file there now is relatively cheap, and will save you from immense losses or huge ransoms in the future.

Fortunately, we have a number of contacts in Brazil. Randazza Legal Group (randazza.com) and its managing partner, Marc J. Randazza, have significant experience in global brand protection. Mr. Randazza has an international law degree in Intellectual Property studies, and Randazza Legal Group has significant relationships with a number of firms globally, to help protect your brand. You can reach RLG through its website randazza.com.

Contact us here if you wish for us to assist you in getting your brand protected in Brazil, the United States, or anywhere else in the world.

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

Randazza Legal Group is proud to announce that it has given a pro bono representation grant to the American Muslim Women PAC to provide First Amendment and Intellectual Property services to the organization.

The PAC’s president, Marriam Seddiq, said, ‘Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion, these are key American values. We are proud to not only stand up to those values for our members and our constituents, but we are proud that a premier defender of the First Amendment has chosen to not only represent us, but has insisted on doing so for free. As we protect the rights of our constituents, we look forward to the Randazza firm protecting our Civil liberties.’

Managing partner of Randazza Legal Group, Marc Randazza, said, ‘We are proud to donate our time to this organization. We are committed to the principles of inclusion and expression that this excellent organization exemplifies.’

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

Is Donald Trump’s controversial reputation sufficient to refer to him as “Libel Proof”? On one hand, with Trump’s numerous statements dating back decades about how he objectifies women and his recently leaked statements he calls “locker room talk,” it’s hard to see how his reputation on this point could get any worse. On the other hand, Trump doesn’t quite fit the mold of the typical libel-proof plaintiff. First Amendment attorney Marc Randazza discussed the phenomenon of the libel-proof plaintiff and more.

Read the entire article here.

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

In the 2016 presidential race, there is more third-party support than at any other time in recent history. Gary Johnson’s candidacy provides an alternative to the two major party candidates. The Greens’ Jill Stein offers a progressive alternative to the Democrats’ decidedly un-progressive move to the right.

The fact that most Americans would prefer neither Clinton nor Trump is a well known fact. However, many are voting for “the lesser of two evils.” But, many would also like to see the Green or Libertarian parties grow into real alternatives to the Republicans and the Democrats. What are they to do?

The 2000 presidential election offers little comfort to anyone these days, but an issue that arose in that election could be both effective, and much easier, in 2016.

In the 2000 election, left-leaning voters wanted to support the Green Party. If Ralph Nader’s Greens got 5% of the popular vote, the Greens would be entitled to federal matching campaign funds in 2004. Greens and many Democrats saw that as a progressive win. However, they also wished for the Democratic nominee, Al Gore, to win the election. Confronted with the dilemma of voting their conscience or voting strategically, a group of them came up with a plan: Vote Swapping. In states where the electoral votes were a foregone conclusion due to Democratic or Republican party dominance, would-be Gore voters would pair with Green voters in swing states. The “safe state” voters would vote for Nader, while the swing state voters would pledge to vote for Gore.

Almost immediately, some state election officials cried foul. However, it mostly fell on partisan lines. Some even threatened prosecution.

Were vote-swapping sites truly corrupting the electoral process? Does this conduct fall within the boundaries of political speech and freedom of assembly, subject to the highest level of First Amendment protection? Or is it the same as buying a vote and contravening the one-citizen, one-vote ideal? Did the election officials step on the most precious of American rights and alter history in the process?

In the wake of this controversy, Marc Randazza produced two law review articles on the subject. The Constitutionality of Online Vote Swapping, in the Loyola Law Review, and four years later, he refined his research in the Washington University Law Quarterly in The Other Election Controversy of Y2K: Core First Amendment Values and High-Tech Political Coalitions. The latter was cited in the only court decision to declare online vote swapping to be protected — Porter v. Bowen.

In the 2016 election, again the decision will come down to a few key states. However, there is greater third party support than ever before. With rapid social media communications in place, online coalitions of third party voters could be a successful strategy. However, as in 2000, it is likely that partisan election officials will at least try and discourage the practice. The research in these two articles should show that this practice is constitutionally protected.

Read more and download the paper

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

The adult industry news newtwork Xbiz published an article where Marc Randazza comments on the case filed by The Slants, an Asian American rock band. The case will be heard by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s decision may effect the decision on NFL’s Washington Redskins trademark case.

Industry attorney Marc Randazza says the adult entertainment biz should closely follow a trademark protection case that will be argued before U.S. Supreme Court justices.

Read the entire article here.

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

In the case of intellectual property rights (IPRs), some nations erect barriers to the protection of IPRs on the basis of “morality.” This paper will examine the implications of morality-based impediments to the enforcement of IPRs and their supportability under international agreements.

There are significant freedom of expression issues to consider when we think about “morality” getting in the way of intellectual property rights.

If that description doesn’t make you run to download it, it manages to include an academic discussion of “Cumfiesta”, “Screw You”, “Nut Sack Ale”, and Japanese porn being stolen in Taiwan. Beat that.

Download the paper to learn more

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

A recent case in Florida federal court provides a reminder of how important it is to plead sufficient allegations against every defendant, even unidentified John Does.  COR Clearing, LLC v. Investorhub.com, Inc., Case No. 4:16-mc-00013-RH-CAS (N.D. Fla. May 11, 2016) is a case about unmasking anonymous Internet posters, but because the plaintiff was sloppy in its allegations, the court was able to deny its request to identify the posters without substantially addressing the First Amendment.

The plaintiff, COR, filed a suit in Nebraska federal court against a company called Calissio Resources Group, Inc. (and other agents/employees), alleging that Calissio defrauded COR of over $4 million by giving dividends to shareholders who were not entitled to them.  COR claimed that this was a tightly-knit conspiracy among the named defendants.  Although COR named Doe defendants in this suit, it did not direct any allegations at them or try to identify them, and even specified that it was not asserting any claims against Calissio’s shareholders.

After starting the Nebraska suit, COR opened a miscellaneous case in Northern District of Florida to send a Rule 45 subpoena to Investorhub seeking the identities of anonymous posters on its web site, which hosts several finance and investment forums.  COR did this because it alleged that anonymous posts on one of Investorhub’s message boards provided evidence of who improperly received dividends.  According to COR, the named defendants had vanished, and so the only way it could recover the unjustly paid money was to determine the identities of these message board posters and bring an unjust enrichment claim against them.  The problem with this theory, as the court ultimately found, was that COR did not make any allegations against the John Doe defendants that would have supported an unjust enrichment claim.

Investorhub refused to produce the subpoenaed documents, arguing that the First Amendment protects the right to speak anonymously.  COR then filed a motion to compel production of these documents.

The court recognized that people have a right to speak anonymously, even on the Internet, but that anonymous speech is not protected when it constitutes fraud.  What complicated the question, however, is that the anonymous posters on Investorhub were not parties to COR’s civil suit.  This was not related to a criminal investigation, and the identities of the posters would not provide evidence establishing the allegedly fraudulent scheme, since COR never alleged that there was anything unlawful about the content of the anonymous messages.

In denying the motion to compel, the court recognized that: “[t]he First Amendment right implicated here is not inconsequential.”  (Order at 11.)  But this conclusion did not follow an in-depth balancing analysis, even though the court recited the First Amendment balancing standards in anonymous speech cases, as laid out in Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005) and Dendrite Int’l, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 342 N.J. Super. 134, 140-41 (N.J. App. Div. 2001).

Instead, it found dispositive the fact that the anonymous posts, and the identities of these posters, did not relate to allegations against the named defendants, and that there were essentially no allegations against the unidentified John Doe defendants.  COR could have potentially avoided this outcome, then, if it had properly pled an unjust enrichment claim against the John Doe defendants in the Nebraska case.  COR may still be able to do this by amending its complaint in Nebraska and then issuing another subpoena in Florida, but it would have to satisfy the strict requirements of the First Amendment to obtain the identities of the anonymous posters.

Read the full Order here.

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

UK newspaper The Guardian published an article on Friday about attorney Marc Randazza’s fight to protect the Klingon language from being restrained by copyright. The brief, filed on behalf of the Language Creation Society in lawsuit between Paramount Pictures and the producers of a fan-made Star Trek film, argued the constructed languages are not subject to copyright, no matter who created them.

Randazza argued that Klingon has escaped its creators thanks to the “thousands of people” who have made it “an actual living language”. Paramount could own a dictionary or dialogue from a script, he argued, but not a language used by Star Trek fans and others at conventions and colleges, in books and TV shows, and even during weddings.

Read the entire article here.

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

Irish Legal News published an article on Thursday commenting on a brief of amicus curiae filed by attorney Marc Randazza on behalf of the Language Creation Society seeking to protect the Klingon language from copyright control. The brief was filed in Los Angeles federal court in the matter of Paramount Pictures v. Axanar Productions.

The Language Creation Society insists that Klingon is “an actual living language” that is therefore not subject to copyright law. It concludes: “Thus, Defendant’s motion to dismiss should be allowed with respect to Plaintiffs’ copyright claims over the Klingon language.”

Read the entire article here.

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

Popular news website Uproxx published an article on Thursday discussing the legal fight waged by attorney Marc Randazza, seeking to protect the Klingon language from copyright protection. Randazza filed the amicus curiae brief pro bono on behalf of the Language Creation Society in the matter of Paramount Pictures v. Axanar Productions.

The problem with that argument is that Klingon is very much a living language. The Klingon Language Institute has focused on translating the English classics into Klingon, and translates current SF stories as well. Official government communications have been issued in Klingon. You can even use Google in Klingon. Few, if any, of these projects were licensed by Paramount, and even if they were, that does raise the question of whether you can copyright a language.

Read the entire article here.

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

The Recorder, a leading online legal news publication, wrote Thursday about an amicus curiae brief filed by attorney Marc Randazza in the matter of Paramount Pictures v. Axanar Productions. Randazza filed the brief on behalf of the Language Creation Society arguing that the Klingon language was not subject to copyright, as Paramount asserted.

To say the filing is colorful doesn’t do it justice. Submitted by Marc Randazza of Las Vegas-based Randazza Legal Group, it is peppered with Klingon sayings­—including a translation of a phrase from the 1998 film “The Big Lebowski.”

Read the entire article here.

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

On Thursday, popular the popular Consumer Reports blog Consumerist reported on the fight waged by attorney Marc Randazza against attempts to copyright the Klingon language.

As we reported earlier this month, Paramount Pictures is trying to block a crowdfunded Star Trek fan film based, in part, on the studio’s claim that it actually owns the copyright on the Klingon language. Now the Language Creation Society has chimed in on the case, making the argument that Paramount can’t claim ownership on a fictional language.

Read the article here.

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

Newser, an online news publication, wrote Thursday about a brief filed in Los Angeles federal court by attorney Marc J. Randazza in the matter of Paramount Pictures v. Axanar Productions.

… attempting to copyright Klingon is absurd given the language is an “idea or a system.”

Read the entire article here.

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

In an article on Public Knowledge published Thursday, copyright expert Charles Duan praised Marc Randazza’s amicus brief on behalf of the Language Creation Society in the matter of Paramount Pictures v. Axanar Productions.

In my almost three years at Public Knowledge, I have never been so delighted as this morning when I saw an amicus curiae brief in the lawsuit over copyright in the constructed language Klingon – which opens by quoting a Klingon proverb, in Klingon script.

Read the article here.

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

On Thursday, the popular online legal blog Lawyerist praised Marc Randazza’s amicus brief submitted in the case Paramount Pictures v. Axanar Productions. Randazza, the managing partner of Randazza Legal Group, filed his brief arguing that the Klingon language should be protected from copyright control by Paramount. The Lawyerist wrote:

Marc Randazza is hands down the most entertaining legal writer in the English Klingon language.

Read the article here.

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

Irish online entertainment news site Entertainment.ie recently published an article on Marc Randazza’s amicus brief fighting for legal independence of the Klingon language.

Fans have gone on to create fully working English-Klingon dictionaries. However, Paramount CBS, the creators behind Star Trek, are now locked in a legal battle with hardcore fans who want to ensure that the Klingon language belongs to fans and not to corporate interests.

Read the rest of the article here.

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

The United Kingdom’s IT publication, The Register, recently published an article describing attorney Marc Randazza’s efforts to keep the Klingon language from copyright encroachment.

But, the Language Creation Society says, although it is “understandable that Paramount might feel some sense of ownership over the creation,” the reality is that it has since become a much bigger thing. “The language has taken on a life of its own,” reads the society’s court submission. The organization liberally scattered Klingon phrases and proverbs in its text to make its point.

The case will be heard on May 9, 2016 in Los Angeles federal court.

Read the rest of the article here.

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

The Lawyer Herald, an online legal news publication, wrote Friday that a brief filed in the case of Paramount Pictures v. Axanar Productions has “spark[ed] debate.”

Language Creation Society has recently filed an amicus brief on behalf of the defendants, arguing the merits of whether the Klingon language could be copyrighted.

The date continues on, as the parties await a hearing set for May 9, 2016 in Los Angeles federal court.

Read the entire article here.

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

On the heals of the filing of a brief of amicus curiae by Randazza Legal Group managing partner Marc Randazza, The Financial Post published an article discussing the brief. The article, in part, says:

The brief provides numerous examples of the widespread cultural use and academic study of Klingon. The court document is also liberally peppered with Klingon proverbs, words, typeface and attitude. To wit, the society says the film studio may live to regret making a legal claim on the Klingon language: “By opening this door, Plaintiffs will learn ‘rut neH ‘oH vIta’Qo’ Qob law’ yu’ jang.’”

A footnote explains the citation: “This Klingon proverb translates to ‘Sometimes the only thing more dangerous than a question is an answer.’”

Read the rest of the article here.

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

When Paramount Pictures sued a production company over a crowd-funded fan film called “Axanar,” Paramount asserted copyright over the Klingon language. On behalf of the Language Creation Society, Randazza Legal Group filed a pro bono amicus brief in the case, arguing that languages are not subject to copyright.

The brief states: “Given that Paramount Pictures commissioned the creation of some of the language, it is understandable that Paramount might feel some sense of ownership over the creation. But, feeling ownership and having ownership are not the same thing. The language has taken on a life of its own. Thousands of people began studying it, building upon it, and using it to communicate among themselves.” “It would not take a Vulcan to explain their logic – even the Pakleds would know that nobody can ‘own’ a language.”

The brief has been reported on by The Guardian, CNNThe Hollywood Reporter, NPR, The Washington PostVICE, Bloomberg BNA, SalonFox NewsThe Seattle Times, VICE MotherboardFusion, Law.comReason, BoingBoing, PRI’s The WorldAV ClubThe Wrap, TechDirtTorrentFreak, Law360News.com.au, FindlawUproxx, The RecorderConsumerist, FilmWeekNewser, Inquisitr, Mental FlossPublic Knowledge, PJ MediaLawyerist, Legal InsurrectionEntertainment.ieThe Register, UPI, Fansided, Golem (DE)Lawyer Herald, WIPRThe Financial PostPopehat, This Week in LawOverlawyered, Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof BlogLowering The Bar, Slashdot, The InterrobangTechnoLlama, Lizerbram LawMediaite, Observation DeckPlayNation (DE), derStandard (DE), VistaNews (RU), Lenta (RU)1701 News, Krypton Radio, The 1709 BlogCommon Sense Advisory, Michigan StandardTechno-LibertyObsevThe Comeback, Joe.My.God.Star Trek Databas, the Back 40k, Newsbuss, Biederman Blog, and Airlock Alpha.

Find the brief here.

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

Pamela Boling (represented by Marc Randazza) hired IQTaxx to prepare her taxes, including the filing of a hardship notice. IQTaxx failed to do so. Boling turned to Yelp and left a review detailing her experience with the company. Shortly thereafter, IQTaxx sent a cease-and-desist to Boling over her “exaggerated emotional rant review.” Defamation does not cover exaggerations or emotional rants, but rather false statements purporting to be facts. The court finds the company has failed to satisfy both prongs of Nevada’s anti-SLAPP test.

Check out the Techdirt article here.

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

Eddie Izzard famously said “no flag, no country.” However, in this age, a flag is not the most important prerequisite for independence. In fact, the concept of “independence” now includes “Digital Independence.” Kosovo deserves to have full recognition of its independence — including in cyberspace. Kosovo gained territorial and de facto political independence. Nevertheless, ICANN refuses to pay it the respect it deserves by granting it full digital independence in the form of giving it its own country code top level domain.  Objections to Kosovo’s online independence lack any honest justification, and its digital independence should not be held hostage by old Balkan rivalries or bureaucratic intransigence.

This article makes the case for Kosovo to be granted full digital independence. Download the Kosovo article here.

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

Last year, Dan Bilzerian sued the Dirty World for publishing a story about a woman who alleged Bilzerian gave her an STD. The media news website TMZ posted an article about the lawsuit, and Bilzerian immediately amended his initial complaint to include TMZ as a defendant, alleging TMZ’s article was false and defamatory. Randazza Legal Group filed an Anti-SLAPP motion on behalf of TMZ, and the District Court in Clark County, Nevada GRANTED the Anti-SLAPP, dismissing all of Bilzerian’s claims against TMZ Productions. Another win for RLG and the Nevada Anti-SLAPP law!

Read the entire Anti-SLAPP Order here: TMZ Anti-SLAPP Order

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

(Pace Vegas) Pamela Boling probably didn’t expect to end up in court when she hired iQTAXX to assist with filing special paperwork with the IRS. However, when she found out that they hadn’t done the work they promised and she had paid for, she turned to YELP to get assistance, posting a negative review and her personal experience. That’s how she ended up getting sued. That’s when she turned to Marc Randazza, one of the Las Vegas’ heavy hitting attorneys that knows how to bring down the legal hammer when it’s needed to address the rights of consumers.

Read the complete article here.

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

On Above the Law’s “Thinking Like a Lawyer,” Elie and First Amendment Lawyer Marc Randazza talk about the Hulk Hogan verdict, the right to be forgotten, and how Europe seems to be getting along just fine without ruining everybody’s Google footprints.

Listen to the full discussion here.

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

A Florida jury decided on Friday evening that Gawker Media must pay Hulk Hogan, aka Terry Bollea, $115 million in damages after running a portion of sex tape of the famous wrestler on its site.

The case centers on a 2012 post by former Gawker editor A.J. Daulerio, in which he posted an edited section of a sex tape filmed without Bollea’s consent. . .

Read the full article here.

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

(CNN) Is Donald Trump finally learning about the meaning of free speech?

Other candidates might be bad for free speech once elected. But Trump is the only candidate to actually campaign to reduce our First Amendment rights. This is the guy who said, “There used to be consequences to protesting. There are none anymore. These people are so bad for our country, you have no idea, folks.”

Marc Randazza says Trump, who has talked about curtailing First Amendment protections, deserves the right to speak freely . . .

Read the CNN Opinion Article here.

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

(CNN) Donald Trump has said a lot of strange things — some funny, some creepy, but none scarier than what he said on Friday: that if he is elected president, he will “open up our libel laws” to make it easier to sue the media and “win lots of money.” No matter what you may think about his other policy ideas, if he keeps this promise, we won’t be able to effectively express dissent against anything else he might want to do. We can fight any bad policy if we have a robust First Amendment…

Read more

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

“This guy is no more advocating rape or even seriously advocating changing the rape laws than Johnny Depp is really a pirate,” said Marc Randazza, First Amendment Attorney.

Randazza believes Roosh V.’s opinion on legalizing rape on private property is just a publicity stunt.  Roosh V. published an article on his website claiming if rape became legal; women would make better decisions about who they go home with, but he said that was satire.

Satire or not, the article is making its rounds on social media and causing outrage.  A lot of people say the blogger’s views are nothing but hateful rhetoric, but Randazza says it’s his constitutional right…

Read more …

FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

First Amendment and Intellectual Property expert Marc Randazza’s latest law review article tackles the intersection of freedom of expression and intellectual property law. Freedom of Expression and Morality Based Impediments to the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights,” does not just examine the issues from a U.S. perspective, as it reviews intellectual property rights and morality from a global perspective.

The Abstract alone gives you enough reason to download the article and dig in:

“In the case of intellectual property rights (IPRs), some nations erect barriers to the protection of IPRs on the basis of ‘morality.’ This paper will examine the implications of morality-based impediments to the enforcement of IPRs and their supportability under international agreements.

If that description doesn’t make you run to download it, it manages to include an academic discussion of ‘Cumfiesta,’ ‘Screw You,’ ‘Nut Sack Ale,’ and Japanese porn being stolen in Taiwan. Beat that.”

Read more …

News Archive