Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Microsoft Patents News

Vista Trademark Holder Sues Microsoft 209

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the free-publicity dept.
Liam Cromar writes "Philippe Gildas, a French television presenter is suing Microsoft for 'violation of intellectual property' — in particular the use of the 'Vista' trademark. It appears that Gildas registered the trademark two years prior to Microsoft's application, planning to use the trademark for a new television channel, Télé Vista, which was to be launched later this year. Apparently, Gildas believes that Microsoft's 'hogging of the limelight' presents an 'obstacle to the launch'. Gildas has not, however, registered the Vista trademark in categories of activity 9 and 42, which cover software. With this in mind, his case might be hard to prove."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Vista Trademark Holder Sues Microsoft More

Vista Trademark Holder Sues Microsoft

Comments Filter:

  • So conflicted.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by catbutt ( 469582 ) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @01:05PM (#19412927)
    It really hurts me to take microsoft's side.

    • Does it hurt your zealotry street cred? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      That's the big problem with FOSSies: they don't have an actual moral compass, they are simply contrarian to anything Microsoft.

      But fortunately there are people who believe what they believe for good reason... and we have no problem being on Microsoft's side when approprite, or in bashing Apple for their brutal monopolistic practices, or in criticizing Linux in contentedly chasing Windows 95's tail lights for over a decade.

      In other news, I hear window makers are also going to sue Microsoft. The produce indu

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by digitalunity ( 19107 )
        If you can stop the cynicysm for just a moment, try to look at this from the plaintiffs perspective. Microsoft is increasingly moving the Windows platform into a black-box media center type application for consumer use. The point of convergence between entertainment mediums is becoming fuzzier as interactive entertainment is pushed through cable, satellite and over-the-air broadcast, a traditionally gaming console or computer-only proposition in the past. This situation will be further exacerbated in the fu

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by killjoe ( 766577 )
        I am happy when MS gets sued because it depletes their money pile. Every cent they spend defending a lawsuit is a cent they are not spending on bribing politicians, or paying lobbyist, or whatever else they do.

        I would like to see a million people file frivolous lawsuits against MS till they run out of money to pay their lawyers to sue people for their use linux IP.
      • The GP post stated that it pains him to side with MS.

        i.e. he believes they are in the right, thus he does the honest thing and sides with them.

        But, and this is a big but, it always hurts when somebody who you consider despicable is found out to be in the correct side of a given issue.

        Our moral compass is right, thank you very much (frivolous law suits against anybody, including MS, should not exist in an ideal world), your strawmen, cinycism and reading comprehension skills could do with a brush up.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kelnos ( 564113 )

        That's the big problem with FOSSies: they don't have an actual moral compass, they are simply contrarian to anything Microsoft.
        While I would never call myself a "FOSSie", since it looks and sounds pretty stupid, I guess you could label me as one. I'm not on anyone's side, per se. A frivolous lawsuit is a frivolous lawsuit, regardless of who's bringing it against whom.

    • Re:So conflicted.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by kimvette ( 919543 ) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @01:49PM (#19413603) Homepage Journal
      *nod* as much as I hate Microsoft due to their anti-customer stance in recent years, Microsoft is TOTALLY in the clear on this.

      Hey dumbass! (Philippe Gildas, this means you)

      Trademarks apply only in the very specific industry categories in which they are registered, and in order for the trademark to be protected, you must aggressively enforce your trademark as soon as you find any infringement (outside of fair use that is). For example; if there is no Microsoft-brand toilet paper and there is a trademark category covering toilet paper products, you can actually register a microsoft-brand toilet paper and market it as Microsoft-brand toilet paper, and be TOTALLY in the clear of any infringement against Microsoft's trademark. If you make your logo, etc. similar so as to intentionally confuse people in the marketplace and lead them to think you are associated with Microsoft of Redmond, WA, then it becomes infringement even though you would be otherwise legally clear. You have to go out of your way to confuse people though, for a legal infringement to take place.

      Philippe Gildas, I hope they (Microsoft) countersue and own you in the end. You embody everything that is wrong in today's business world.

      • Re:So conflicted.... (Score:4, Informative)

        by DustyShadow ( 691635 ) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @02:28PM (#19414223) Homepage
        Actually you can sue for dilution when someone uses a similar mark as yours even though the two are used in different industries. Likelihood of confusion is not a factor in a dilution claim. However, dilution suits are usually successful only when your mark is considered to be famous. I don't think he'd win on that. A good example is "victoria's secret" vs. "victor's little secret."
        • Yeah, but *HOW* long has "Vista" been declared as the release name for this version of windows, at least a year, or two... I find it pretty hard to believe that they didn't know, and were active in enforcing their trademark... This is a money grab, plain and simple... if they'd approached MS a couple years ago, MS would have changed the name before shipping.
          • I wasn't trying to say that Microsoft will lose this case. Dilution claims usually only work if the plaintiff's mark is famous. Is Tele Vista a famous mark? I'd never heard of it before this article. I dont think MS has much to worry about.

            Is this case in the US or France? I don't know France's trademark law so if it is there then everything I've said could be incorrect.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Glytch ( 4881 )

        For example; if there is no Microsoft-brand toilet paper and there is a trademark category covering toilet paper products, you can actually register a microsoft-brand toilet paper and market it as Microsoft-brand toilet paper, and be TOTALLY in the clear of any infringement against Microsoft's trademark.

        Note to self, investigate possible market among techies who would like to wipe their asses with Microsoft.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Kijori ( 897770 )
        Things aren't as clear cut as you seem to think. Trademarks will normally only ever apply to the domain in which they are registered; however, in exceptional circumstances this requirement can be waived; this was done, for example, to prevent the use of the Microsoft name as a furniture shop. It was felt (in my opinion rightly) that piggybacking off someone else's trademark like this would be unreasonable.

        Objecting to the use of his trademark for most software programs would be unreasonable, but I can see g

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Intron ( 870560 )
          Its pretty obvious that a furniture store has no claim to calling itself "Microsoft". They should change their name to something clearly related to the furniture business, like "Tiger Wood Works".

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Kijori ( 897770 )
            I dunno. If they sold small soft furnishings it wouldn't be a massive stretch.

            No idea if they did or not.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by haraldm ( 643017 )
        This is not the case everywhere in the world (as many things are different in the rest of the world compared to the U.S., thankfully). As some of you may remember, a Germany-based mobile Linux web site named mobilix.de [mobilix.de] had to be renamed (to tuxmobil.de) due to a case brought forward by the copyright holders of Asterix & Obelix, a popular French comic. As if "mobilix" had any similarities with "Obelix", and it is definitely a different "category" according to U.S. trademark law. So in some countries (de
    • It really hurts me to take microsoft's side.

      What was that saying?

      "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

      Seemed to work for the Allies and Soviets during WWII. Never mind the problems afterwards...
    • Don't worry. To ease your conflict, let's laugh at both sides...

      Apparently in Latvian "Vista" means "Hen". I dare say they will "lay" into them for that. Or hatch another name.....

    • It really hurts me to take microsoft's side.
      At least your insightful comment balances out this insightful comment [slashdot.org].
       

  • Yeah... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Z00L00K ( 682162 ) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @01:05PM (#19412929) Homepage Journal
    and Garmin has it's Vista [garmin.com] too...

    Maybe they have registered under the software clausule?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by KarmaMB84 ( 743001 )
      They probably registered as "eTrex Vista" just like Microsoft more than likely registered as "Windows Vista" which is why they put a TM after Vista and nothing after Windows in their Windows Vista logos despite ALWAYS having an (R) on Windows in any art Vista isn't tacked on.
    • I already registered it as a word. Funny how these things tend to work out.

  • Software? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Troed ( 102527 )
    Microsoft is presenting Vista as the answer to your media worries as well - UPnP out of the box etc. Claiming it's "only software" seems a bit narrow thinking.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by phasm42 ( 588479 )

      Microsoft is presenting Vista as the answer to your media worries as well - UPnP out of the box etc. Claiming it's "only software" seems a bit narrow thinking.
      There is a significant difference between a media player and the distribution and actual content of the media.
      • You're right there is -- to you and I. This is the sort of thing that I can very easily picture Joe Sixpack conflating, though. Kind of like thinking that the monitor is the computer (shut up, iMac!).
    • I agree that presenting Vista as only being applicable to a software trademark isn't realistic. For example, if someone were to have registered the trademark "Coke" for use with a TV station, people would expect it to be affiliated with the gargantuan beast that is Coke. Vista is a gargantuan beast much like Coke and will influence everyone's perception of the word. It's big enough, in other words, to be applicable outside of software. Couple that with the dislike of Microsoft in EU courts, and this man's g
      • Dislike? What makes you think the EU courts dislike MS? MS can be milked for years and years, providing either steady cash flow for those pathetic excuses for governments we have over here or nice gifts to the politicians involved in the court cases. What's not to like about MS?

      • Re:Software? (Score:5, Informative)

        by badasscat ( 563442 ) <basscadet75@@@yahoo...com> on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @01:59PM (#19413777)
        I agree that presenting Vista as only being applicable to a software trademark isn't realistic. For example, if someone were to have registered the trademark "Coke" for use with a TV station, people would expect it to be affiliated with the gargantuan beast that is Coke. Vista is a gargantuan beast much like Coke and will influence everyone's perception of the word. It's big enough, in other words, to be applicable outside of software.

        Not if it isn't registered as such, it isn't.

        Look, the law is what it is. You can say whatever you want about what people might think about a TV station named "Coke"; if Coke (whichever one) hasn't registered the trademark for that purpose, then they have no claim over it.

        There are plenty of examples of different companies using the same trademark. Westinghouse, for example - the maker of Westinghouse TV's is a wholly different company than the maker of, say, Westinghouse solar landscape lighting kits. It really doesn't matter if the TV maker is afraid that the solar light company is sullying their reputation; if they didn't register the trademark, then they didn't register the trademark.

        Most large companies will register as many trademark uses as they can think of for just this reason. They're smart enough to realize this. Here is, for example, the defined uses on just one of Coca Cola's many trademarks on the word "Coke":

        Board games; checker sets; playing cards; card games; puzzles; balloons; hand held unit for playing electronic games; Christmas decorations and accessories of all kinds, namely, Christmas tree skirts, artificial Christmas garlands; Christmas tree ornaments; Christmas stockings; Christmas tree decorations; snow globes; sporting equipment and accessories for soccer, namely, soccer balls; sporting equipment and accessories for golf, namely, golf balls, golf tees, golf ball markers, ball cleaners, golf putters, divot repair tools, golf bags; sporting equipment and accessories for skating, namely, in-line skates, skate boards; elbow pads for athletic use; knee pads for athletic use; shin pads for athletic use; badminton game playing equipment; sporting equipment and accessories for fishing, namely, fishing lures; billiard cues, billiard balls, billiard game playing equipment and accessories, namely billiard bridges, billiard bumpers, billiard chalk, billiard cue racks, billiard cushions, billiard nets, billiard tables, billiard tally balls, billiard tips, billiard triangles, cue sticks for billiard or pool; snow sleds for recreational use; pinball machines; sport balls; toy vehicles; toy electric trains; toy model train sets; train set accessories, namely, artificial trees, turf, foliage, ballast, buildings, figurines, billboards, lichen and grass; toy banks, toy mobiles, multiple activity baby toys; dart board cases; dart boards; dolls and accessories therefor; plush toys; yo-yos; flying discs; inflatable toys

        Another one:

        Plates; cups; drinking glasses; tankards not of precious metal; mugs; tumblers; drinking steins; pitchers; decanters, goblets; ice buckets, coasters not of paper and not being table linen; serving pieces, namely, serving tongs, serving platters; serving trays not of precious metal; salt and pepper shakers; condiment holders, sugar dispensers and basins, toothpick holders; napkin holders; dispensers for paper towels; holders for facial tissue; fitted picnic baskets; trivets, cookie jars; canister sets, storage containers for household and kitchen use not of precious metal; party bowls; floral containers; bottle openers; straw dispensers; dinnerware, bottles sold empty; dishware, namely, plates, bowls, cups and saucers; creamer pitchers; candy dishes; spoon rests; flower pots; corn cob holders; cutting boards; cookie cutters; candle holders not of precious metal; bread boxes; bird houses of wood; cooking utensils, namely, grill covers; utensils for barbecues, namely, forks, turners; stove burner covers; recipe boxes; coffee pots not of precious metal; tea pots not of precious metal; utensils fo

        • Re:Software? (Score:4, Informative)

          by DRJlaw ( 946416 ) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @03:12PM (#19414893)
          Not if it isn't registered as such, it isn't.... The point is, Coke registered these trademarks, no matter how small the item in question, because they knew they had to if they wanted to prevent others from producing these products. They know that they can't use the "we're bigger than they are, so we own all the uses of the word 'Coke'" trademark defense. There is no such defense.

          Not exactly. You've made a reasonable and partially correct argument, but the grandparent poster was not wrong.

          The Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, even as amended in 2006, lets entities who own famous trademarks bring trademark infringement suits against others who use that mark in other classes of goods and/or services even if the owner does not market products within those classes themselves. 15 U.S.C. 1125(c) [cornell.edu] The 2006 amendments narrowed the scope of famous marks because every Tom, Dick, and Harry claimed that their mark was famous or had 'niche' fame, but you're arguing about the granddaddy of all marks, "Coke."

          Normally you develop a trademark by actively marketing goods and/or services, and your trademark rights are limited to uses of the mark in association with similar types of goods and/or services. However, trademarks like "Coke" have enormous recognition and value, and the Coca-Cola Corporation cannot reasonably be expected to actively market goods or license the marketing of goods in every conceivable commercial sphere, even if it wanted to. (Coke brand sex toys, anyone? I think not.)

          Coke, Ford, Gucci and the like are trademarks that are so distinctive that the rights holders do have the ability to argue 'we're so big we own [most of] the brand uses of the mark' and win. Contrary to what some have suggested in their comments, the owner of a famous mark does not own all uses of the word itself, coke is still a fuel for the production of steel or slang for cocaine and Ford is still a president or a shallow crossing point in a river, but not even the Coca-Cola Corporation has to pursue every commercial opportunity or outlet in order to prevent others from doing so.

          The concept of trademark dilution has limits -- you can still find other Ford businesses and marks, for example -- but if the mark is truly famouns and there is a likelihood of confusion between the famous mark and the other use of the mark, the famous mark can quite possibly overwhelm the other mark, especially if it is comparatively new.

        • There are plenty of examples of different companies using the same trademark. Westinghouse, for example - the maker of Westinghouse TV's is a wholly different company than the maker of, say, Westinghouse solar landscape lighting kits.

          As an aside, that's probably an unusual example. Over the years, the company that was Westinghouse (then White-Westinghouse) has sold off various subdivisions and licenced the name and logo for that subdivision. A lot of those companies were, at one point, part of the same We

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by 1ucius ( 697592 )

          Not if it isn't registered as such, it isn't.
          In the US at least, you get rights to a mark through use in commerce. Registration provides a number of useful procedural advantages, but is not necessary.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by kalirion ( 728907 )
      I agree. "Microsoft Vista" should be changed to "Microsoft Smoked Meats and Fishes" to avoid confusing the customers.

  • Publicity stunt (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phasm42 ( 588479 ) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @01:06PM (#19412953)
    Given that he registered the trademark a different category and could have a hard time arguing his case because of it, this sounds like a publicity stunt to garner some attention to his service before launch. After all, his complaint is that MS Vista is hogging the limelight; this will get him some of that limelight.
    • Except PC world are selling Vista PCs as "media centers"

      • Re:Publicity stunt (Score:4, Insightful)

        by phasm42 ( 588479 ) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @01:12PM (#19413051)

        Except PC world are selling Vista PCs as "media centers"
        Do you not see the difference between a "media center" (which aggregates/plays media) and a "television channel" (which is media)? Just because they both have the word "media" in them does not make them competitors.
        • No but confusion can occure though. Much like the lawsuit from Apple, Inc. (Those guys who make computers, electronics and software) and Apple, Corp. (The Record Company who does the Beatles). The Suit was settled a while ago then when Apple got related to the Music Buisness Apple Corp. Got back on their case because there could be confusion between Apple, Inc. and Apple, Corp.
          For this case a Vista Media Center may be like a CBS Cable Modem, or perhaps a Star Trek DVR. By violating its trademarks people

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by slapout ( 93640 )
          Its not about them being competitors. Its about consumers being confused.
      • So what? It's like the guy suing Sony because they make DVD players. "Media center" is marketing, it's still frigging software.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ms1234 ( 211056 )
      Like someone is going to watch some Microsoft channel on TV :)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by KlomDark ( 6370 )
        They could call it MTV! And they wouldn't play music videos on that channel either...

  • Someone correct me if I am wrong (Score:3, Informative)

    by N3WBI3 ( 595976 ) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @01:06PM (#19412957) Homepage
    But if a product is not even in the same market (OS versus Television station) there is no trademark infringement. Hence there is a company called prime which teaches truck driving and a company called prime that delivers medical services. Seems like a quick attempt to get money by somone who cane really make it themselves.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Wicko ( 977078 )
      Try making a Software company called Walmart. What would happen with that?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by angle_slam ( 623817 )
        Try making a faucet company with the same name as Delta Airlines. Oh wait, that has already happened [deltafaucet.com].

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Threni ( 635302 )
          > Try making a faucet company with the same name as Delta Airlines. Oh wait, that has already happened.

          Try making a battery powered marital aid company with the same name as Italian power company PowergenItalia...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by N3WBI3 ( 595976 )
        Walmart is not an obvious name vista can be used for pretty much anything (like prime)
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by k_187 ( 61692 )
      They could argue trademark dillution, but I don't think they'd win.
    • The argument may be one of convergence. Would he have too much trouble digging up Microsoft marketing material heralding the convergence of computers and televisions? Interviews with top Microsoft execs about their plans for said convergence? If the two product categories in fact converge, how does trademark law accommodate that? If computers become in fact and function equivalent to televisions, then a trademark in the television realm could reasonable confuse customers if it's similar to a trademark in th

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jgoemat ( 565882 )

      (OS versus Television station)
      What about Apple? They had to settle with Apple Records when they started selling iPods and music on iTunes. A version of Vista is even meant to be a media center, hence the closeness to television.
  • IANAL. There is no claim under trademark legislation as far as I can tell. It is unlikely that anyone would confuse a TV broadcast with software. IP is NOT protected under EU law per se. There can be copyright (which doesn't apply here) and patent (which also doesn't apply here). Bet he loses. And of course, being French there will be loads of US comment criticising his attempt. For once, it will probably be justified.

  • Satan is enjoying frozen 'ritas in hell (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jollyreaper ( 513215 ) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @01:07PM (#19412969)
    I can't believe I'm siding with Microsoft against a trademark troll. Time to turn in my geek license.
    • I agree, this is a crappy lawsuit.
      I can't even say i laugh at M$'s expense.
      M$ win anyway, this is a no-brainer.

      When the british Apple Music couldn't kick Apple's butt for selling music, i don't think a french guy who isn't even in the software business can kick Microsoft's butt. The guy must know it as well, so he is either insane, or insane and looking for publicity.
    • I feel bad since I just added you as a friend ten seconds ago... but in reality you need to turn in your zealot license.

      • I feel bad since I just added you as a friend ten seconds ago... but in reality you need to turn in your zealot license.
        Que?
    • Actually, considering your geek license: simply say that Vista isn't any more patentable than Windows.

  • There are different categories for a reason. Besides, how often do you see Microsoft referring to it as just "Vista" as opposed to "Windows Vista" in advertising?
  • Yep, anytime a marketing person needs a little free exposure, all he has to do is file a 'publicity suit' that features OSS or MS, and he can count on /. to scoop up the story and help flog whatever he's trying to sell.
  • Vista is a single word, it is a common word, and it's in the dictionary. Whomever allowed such a trademark should not be allowed to have any job that requires any type of logical thought. Maybe if he had Trademarked "Tele Vista" and it was Microsoft's Tele Vista, he would have some sort of case thought probably not.
  • MPAA trademarked it lol
  • I think this shows the downside of MS moving into every market imaginable. I don't think this guy will win the suit against MS, but the fact that MS is heavily involved in entertainment and home electronics gives him a slim hope. If MS truly only made an operating system, and didn't bolt (bundle) a bunch of other crap onto it, they'd be a lot more immune from sillyness like this.
  • Just because products have the same name doesn't always mean that there's any kind of trademark violation.

    Consider Blizzard's Starcraft vs. Star Craft RV's.
  • I always thought it was lame of Microsoft to choose Vista, since the VistA [worldvista.org] medical records software predates MS-Windows by many, many years.
  • Trademarks are used so that the consumer can identify the product, they work like a guarantee. Trials based on trademark infringement should only be possible when people are fooled. I don't see how anyone could reasonably think Gildas' show and Microsoft's OS are related in any way. Unfortunately, trademarks are more understood nowadays as a form of property right which makes no sense.

  • Gildas has not, however, registered the Vista trademark in categories of activity 9 and 42, which cover software. With this in mind, his case might be hard to prove."
    Should be: With this in mind, Gildas actually has no chance at all to win.
  • Next up, Vista, California (San Diego County) plans to file suit. According to a local city official, "This is the biggest thing since we beat Poway in high school football. And there won't be any budget shortfalls for years now."

    Next up will be an attempt to have Microsoft move their world headquarters to Southern California.

  • So, if he wins, can the VA sue him for use of Vista since they've been using VistA [wikipedia.org] for their EMR far longer than he's even thought about his little television channel?

  • Before I was laid off, there was some joking going around the office about Microsoft's new OS release... Our company has owned the trademark for more than 7 years, but there was no word from the suits that we were ever going to sue Microsoft.

    I thought it would have been funny if we had.

  • Gildas has indeed registered the Vista trademark in categories 35, 38 and 41, which covers the entertainment and media categories he cited. However, he did not register it in categories 9 and 42, covering software and the design and development of computers and software, the areas relevant to Microsoft's operating system.

    I think MS Vista media edition, the version that "specializes" in DVR capabilities and what not might fall under "entertainment and media categories".
    • The media center capabilities are built-in to Home Premium and Ultimate editions. There is no media center edition.
  • If I'm not too mistaken, the codename so far would be "Vienna". Which just happens to be the capital of a lovely little country in Europe. I doubt people would enjoy being associated with a deadweight OS.

    Then again, it would've been quite fitting for the current version of Windows. After all, people from Vienna are notoriously morbid, and "everyone" is very concerned with being, after their demise, what's called "a scheene Leich'" (a beautiful corpse).

    And, IMO, Vista has accomplished this goal by any defini

  • Patents? (Score:3, Informative)

    by LordSnooty ( 853791 ) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @03:57PM (#19415633)
    Who tagged this 'Patents'? Indeed, why is it filed under 'Patent Pending'. This is intellectual property, sure, but not patents. Actually trademark law is fairly sane in terms of what it offers - a guarantee that goods really are provided by the people who claim to provide them. And as the summary points out, the same trademark can be used by different people in different areas of business.
  • He registered the name "Vista" for lots of things, including software, as you can see on this copy of the name deposit (in french of course) : http://elephant.pcinpact.com/images/bd/news/42182. png [pcinpact.com]
  • Company with trademark "Air" sues owner of trademark "Water"!

Slashdot Top Deals

If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.

Close