Goodbye Cathy: Hello Kitty and Miffy settle copycat case

This Kat has been a fan of Hello Kitty since discovering her on a high school exchange trip to Japan many years ago. Therefore, she is most interested in the copyright proceedings involving Hello Kitty's friend Cathy the rabbit and the Dutch rabbit Miffy.

Hello Kitty is a popular children's character created by Japanese design company Sanrio. She is a little half-Japanese, half-English cartoon cat: small, rounded with a red bow between her ears and no mouth. She made her debut in 1974 and is now the face of a cartoon series and numerous merchandise spin-offs. Hello Kitty has become such a global phenomenon that she appears on everything from purses, stickers, jewellery and pen sets to toasters, televisions, clothing, credit cards and computer equipment all over the world.

Cathy is one of the friends of Hello Kitty. She debuted in 1976 and has similarly appeared in the cartoon series and on merchandise. Cathy appears as a white rabbit with upright ears, wearing a tunic which is the same colour as a bow between her ears.

Miffy is a small white female rabbit who was created by Dutch artist Dick Bruna. She first appeared in a children's picture book in 1955 with floppy ears and has been in her current form with upright ears since 1963. She is drawn in a minimalist style, with only a few lines and one or two primary colours. She has gone on to appear in approximately 30 more books (selling 85 million copies worldwide) as well as in a cartoon series and on merchandise such as toys, clothes and stationery.

Mr Bruna has made no secret of his disdain for all things Hello Kitty. In an interview in 2008 with The Telegraph, Mr Bruna stated that the Cathy character:

'is a copy [of Miffy], I think. I don't like that at all. I always think, "No, don't do that. Try to make something that you think of yourself".'

It came as no surprise to anyone then that Mr Bruna would eventually bring an action against Sanrio. Proceedings were brought in The Netherlands by Mercis Media BV (Mr Bruna's copyright management firm) on 26 August 2010. Mercis Media alleged that Sanrio's Cathy character infringed the copyright and trade marks of its Miffy character. Mercis Media sought a provisional disposition order for suspension of the manufacture and sale of Cathy character items and other terms.

On 2 November 2010, the Amsterdam Regional Court found in favour of Mercis Media. It ordered Sanrio: (a) to stop to any production, sale and marketing of Cathy character goods in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg; and (b) to pay €25,000/day if it did not comply, up to a maximum of €2m.

Sanrio appealed the decision. After the ruling in November 2010, it stated that:

'We object to this ruling and do not believe any copyright infringement took place, a view we intend to express legally ... At this point, we believe any impact on company earnings will be limited'.

Further proceedings on the merits were brought by Mercis Media, whilst Sanrio filed a counter claim seeking the Miffy trade mark to be removed from the register.

This Kat has learned that the parties have settled out of court. On 7 June 2011, the companies issued a joint statement announcing they had reached 'a worldwide settlement' of all pending actions. As part of the terms, Sanrio will no longer use the Cathy character and both will donate €150,000 jointly to the victims of the earthquake of 11 March 2011 in Japan rather than spend money on legal fees. Further, both Mercis Media and Sanrio will make considerable efforts to keep a respectful distance from each other’s characters.

The IPKat is saddened by the loss of Cathy, but is glad that the parties were able to reach an amicable settlement with a humanitarian element.

Merpel is all for merchandising and the legitimate exploitation of copyright and trade marks, but suggests that a possible IPKat toaster with a toast 'branding' option would be stretching the friendship ...

Artists in court: a snapshot of current developments in Europe

In "Iconic IP and freedom of expression: the battle lies ahead", the IPKat reported on the tussle between the famous fashion accessory house Louis Vuitton and Dutch artist Nadia Plesner over the incorporation by the latter of a Community design-protected pattern owned by the former into Darfurnica -- her dramatic and symbol-encrusted nod to Picasso's Guernica. LV sued for infringement of its design right; Plesner counterclaimed for a declaration that she was entitled to assert her right of freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Having succeeded in obtaining injunctive relief and token damages in France, LV initially obtained injunctive relief in the Netherlands too (for the litigation background see Rosie Burbidge's post on Art & Artifice here). The IPKat has now learned that, earlier this week, The Hague District Court reversed its own earlier order and has now decided that Plesner's right of free speech is fundamental and trumps LV's entitlement to assert its design right. Those of you who are fluent in Dutch can read the decision here. The Kats are awaiting an English translation, which they believe will come through their Kat-flap before the end of the week.


An emotive fixture in Europe's modern art heritage is the Berlin Wall, which like Guernica communicates a profound statement of man's cruelty to his fellow man.  Now a tourist attraction for many folk who were born too recently to remember those who were slain in a vain attempt to cross it, the Wall is still capable of engendering controversy.  In "Berlin Wall artists sue city in copyright controversy", Guardian Online, 3 May (spotted by too many readers to thank by name), reports that

"The East Side Gallery is one of Berlin's most popular tourist attractions, a 1.3km-long brightly painted stretch of the wall which divided east and west for almost 30 years. But now the outdoor exhibition space is embroiled in an expensive copyright controversy after Berlin council destroyed some artworks painted on the wall and reproduced others without the permission of the original artists.

The city of Berlin, which owns the wall and the land around it, is being sued by 21 artists over the way the council handled recent renovation of the gallery.  ... the artists say they – and about 80 other painters who decorated the wall shortly after the borders between east and west were opened in November 1989 – were offered €3,000 (£2,700) each by Berlin council to recreate their original murals after the site was overhauled for the 20th anniversary of the fall of the wall two years ago.

The artists were told if they refused to comply, an urban renewal firm contracted by the council would whitewash their work and get someone else to re-create – or "forge", according to the aggrieved artists – the originals. ... Many of the Berlin artists deemed €3,000 an insultingly low amount, especially as it was public knowledge that Berlin council had put aside a total of €2.2m for the renovations.

Hannes Hartung, a Munich-based lawyer representing artists in the legal action, said Thierry Noir, one of the artists who contributed to the East Side Gallery, had successfully won €250,000 from Germany's highest court after a section of the wall he painted was sold to a private collector.

Bodo Sperling, one of the founders of the East Side Gallery, whose work was whitewashed two years ago, is demanding at least €25,000. Sperling and 18 others who refused the €3,000 and then watched their work being destroyed are suing the council. They said they would be happy to repaint their designs – for a fair price. Ever since they threatened legal action during the renovation process two years ago, their sections of the wall have remained blank.

Two other artists have launched a claim for intellectual property theft after their original paintings were re-created by the council when they turned down the city's offer. Carmen Leidner Heidrich's Niemandsland (No Man's Land) and Die Geburt der Kachinas (The Birth of Kachina) by Hans Jürgen Grosse were both "forged" against their creators' will. ...   Millions of tourists who visited the reunited city took snaps of the free gallery, especially the famous painting of Leonid Brezhnev and Erich Honecker kissing and another of a Trabant car appearing to burst out from the wall. The artists responsible for both of these paintings accepted the €3,000 to repaint their designs and are not part of the pending legal action. ...

The claim is due to be filed in a Berlin court on Wednesday, although the case is unlikely to be heard for at least three months".

The IPKat is frankly surprised that the authorities in Berlin -- the capital of a country which has a long and proud tradition of upholding artists' rights -- have been allowed to place themselves in a situation such as this; indeed, his instinct is to ask whether there is another side of the story which might explain their action.  Merpel says, every art college should be offering courses on Intellectual Property for Artists, since they seem to be more in need of legal services and representation than many other categories of creators.

Earlier IPKat post on copyright in the Berlin Wall here.

The Teveen Plan: will the Dutch downloading dyke burst?

The IPKat has noticed that there has suddenly been a lot of discussion about what the Dutch are -- or are not -- doing about unauthorised downloading of copyright-protected work in the Netherlands.  He is therefore delighted to have received this account from his friendVivien Rörsch (De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek):

"Downloading to become illegal--but no enforcement against downloaders    

The mission statement of State Secretary for Public Safety and Justice Fred Teeven of 11 April 2011 introduces a proposal to modernise the Dutch copyright regime. Teeven plans, among other things, to ban downloading from evidently illegal sources and to abolish the private copy levy system.  He says these changes have been made necessary by recent technological developments and are appropriate in light of initiatives of the European Commission.  At the moment, downloading from illegal sources for private use is permitted under Dutch law (see De Brauw's Legal Alert, "Two Remarkable Copyright Rulings of the Court of Appeal of The Hague on 15 November 2010"). Consumers pay a levy on rewriteable CDs or DVDs that make it possible to make copies for private use. 

Downloading and uploading 

Uploading used to be such hard work ...

Teeven emphasises that it is important to focus on the role of intermediaries, like website owners, hosting providers and other facilitators. Copyright would not be enforced against individuals who download, regardless of whether a legal or illegal source is concerned. In addition, it would also not be possible to act against individuals who upload on a limited scale. It is highly questionable whether this is appropriate in light of the exhaustive enumeration of exceptions and limitations of the Copyright Directive and the three-step-test, also codified in the TRIPS Agreement. Teeven fails to see that the Directive does not allow a limitation to the right of communication to the public for private use. Contrary to the US fair use doctrine, the European Directive contains an exhaustive list of exceptions. 

... and downloading
was frankly scary

In addition, the proposal introduces a new safe haven for Internet Service Providers. They would not be obligated to provide copyright holders with contact details of consumers who infringe copyrights on a limited scale. However, it is again questionable whether this proposal meets the obligations under the IP Enforcement Directive. 

 It is also debatable whether Teeven's mission statement enhances the enforcement of copyright, since the proposed codification does not go beyond the existing case law regarding the liability of intermediaries for (facilitating) copyright infringement.

 Teeven also sees an important role for search engines, which should give priority to search results referring to websites offering legal content. Does this mean that search results referring to illegal content will not be allowed? Or that search engines should manipulate or filter the 'natural' search results? Under the E-Commerce Directive no general monitoring obligation can be imposed. What's more, the involvement of a search engine in prioritising search results may constitute an indication of knowledge or control and consequently the engine may not rely on the safe harbour provisions of the E-commerce Directive. One thing is for sure -- Teeven’s proposal will not make it easier for intermediaries to find their way through the jungle of rules. The mission statement includes plans to strengthen copyright enforcement when the infringing activity takes place outside the Netherlands. Copyright owners must then be able to ask the Internet Access Provider to block access to specific websites. This plan seems unnecessary, as (art. 26d of) the Dutch Copyright Act implementing the Copyright Directive and the IP Enforcement Directive already establishes such a regime.

The State Secretary wants to stipulate that it is illegal to download copyright protected material from an evidently illegal source. However, it remains unclear what is to be considered an evidently illegal source. As mentioned above, what is given with the one hand is immediately taken back with the other: even though this will constitute a copyright infringement, there will be no measures available to enforce the copyrights against individuals. This seems an ill-conceived compromise. Also, the State Secretary states that if copyright holders want to protect their work, they need to start applying technological measures. This contradicts Teeven's starting point that infringers are inventive when it comes to avoiding technical protection measures, and of course it denies the fact that the industry has tried this already, with consumers ending up complaining. Consequently, the copyright holders might very well end up empty handed, especially as the State Secretary at the same time wants to abolish the Dutch private copy levy system. 

 Abolition of Dutch private copy levy 

Levies are nothing new: note
the green stamp to show that
payment has been made

Teeven argues that if downloading from an illegal source is no longer allowed, there is no longer a need for a private copy levy on blank CDs, suggesting that copyright owners should instead increase the price of their products. Paradoxically, consumers who buy a legal copy would then need to pay more in order to compensate for others who download illegally (and against whom the copyright cannot be enforced). Other questions come to mind as well. For example, what about copies made in the offline world? People still buy CDs, which are copied for private use as well. And what about the compensation for downloads from not evidently illegal sources? Even more problematic is Teeven's reasoning based on the unrealistic assumption that enforcement measures against intermediaries who facilitate evidently illegal downloading will reduce all private copies to a minimum level. It is remarkable that in this respect he refers to the ruling of the EU Court of Justice (ECJ) in Case C‑467/08, Padawan v SGAE in which the ECJ – to the contrary –stipulates that right holders should be “adequately” compensated for the use made of their protected works. 

 Empty shell 

Overall, Teevens’s copyright mission statement falls short of the goals set by the European Parliament in September last year to combat infringement in the digital environment. It leaves individuals free to download regardless of whether illegal sources are concerned. Insofar as the European directives would even allow for the proposed changes, the proposal is an empty shell, at best".

The IPKat suspects that this statement will attract both critical acclaim from the institutional side of the copyright industries and some harsh words from consumers and the competition lobby.  Has Teveen seriously misjudged the legal position, or has he grasped the unwelcome reality of the Brave New World where we all have help-yourself devices? Do let us know!

Downloading from unlawful sources: the Dutch approach

The message may sound paradoxical, but "Copyright owners better off in a regime that allows downloading from illegal sources" was the striking title of a recent post on The 1709 Blog which reported on the 15 November ruling of the Court of Appeal of the Hague in Eyeworks v FTD.  Under the slightly more sober but no less sobering title ""Downloading from an illegal source is permitted in The Netherlands" comes the following note on the same decision from the IPKat's friend, scholar and gentleman Dirk Visser:

"Eyeworks is the producer of and copyright holder relating to the successful Dutch movie entitled Komt een vrouw bij de dokter [a.k.a. Stricken]. DVDs and BluRays of this movie were delivered to shops on 22 April 2010 for sale and rental from 27 April 2010. On the earlier date, the first unauthorised copies of the film were uploaded to Usenet. FTD provides a facility via which internet users can exchange information about where to find movies, including Komt een Vrouw bij de Dokter, and other entertainment files on Usenet. Such movies/entertainment files can then be downloaded. Places where the movie Komt een Vrouw bij de Dokter could be found were included in the FTD facility.

“FTD has not committed any copyright infringement, nor is it an intermediary within the meaning of Article 26d of the Copyright Law [based on Article 9.1 and 11 of the Enforcement directive]. FTD has, however, acted wrongfully vis-à-vis Eyeworks by encouraging the illegal uploading of the movie entitled Komt een Vrouw bij de Dokter from Eyeworks. Downloading from an illegal source is permitted under Dutch law, which means that facilitating the downloading of the film cannot be viewed as an unlawful act by FTD”.

The Court “orders FTD with immediate effect to desist from and continue to desist from having spots present for Eyeworks’ movie entitled Komt een Vrouw bij de Dokter via its FTD application”

The Court rules that downloading from an illegal source is permitted in The Netherlands (and has to be compensated by ‘fair compensation’ (through levies or otherwise)). The Court considers that this might be in violation of the Three-step test of article 5.5 of the Copyright directive, but also that an interpretation of Dutch national copyright law in line with the directive on this issue would result in an inadmissible interpretation ‘contra legem’."

Thanks, Dirk, for not only this note but for a full English translation, which you can read here.

When 'genuine' isn't 'genuine'

Fresh off the press from the IPKat's deeply-appreciated old friend Professor Charles Gielen (NautaDutilh) comes a newsflash concerning a ruling last Friday from the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property ("BOIP") that the use of a Community Trade Mark in EU Member State is insufficient to constitute genuine use of such a trade mark in the EU within the meaning of Article 15 of Community Trade Mark Regulation 40/94 (now Regulation 207/2009). Says Charles:

"This decision can cause problems for owners of CTMs that are used solely in one country of the Community. Such owners could be faced with the situation that after five years of use in one country, their CTM can be revoked because the BOIP perceives such use as not constituting genuine use. The judgment is particularly likely to have a huge impact for enterprises that are active locally and have registered a CTM which they use only in one country of the Community.

It can be argued that the BOIP is implicitly also stating that a Benelux trade mark is not genuinely used if it is used in solely one Benelux country. Accordingly, such Benelux trade marks could also be in danger after five years because the BOIP could perceive the use of such trade marks in one country or province as non-use in the Benelux.

The facts

In July 2009 Hagelkruis Beheer B.V. applied to register the word sign OMEL at the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property ("BOIP") for goods and services in classes 35, 41 and 45. The application was published on 29 July 2009. Hagelkruis planned to use the trade mark OMEL in Norway and Sweden, and possibly in other Scandinavian countries too. The registration of the CTM was intended solely to serve as a basis for an international filing under the Madrid Protocol.

Leno Merken B.V. was the proprietor of an earlier CTM, ONEL, applied for in March 2002 and registered in October 2003 for goods and services in classes 35, 41 and 42 [Aha, says the IPKat -- ONEL is Leno in reverse!]. Leno Merken had operated as a firm of trade mark attorneys firm for over 40 yearsin the Netherlands, offering its services under the trade mark ONEL; its services were directed particularly at Dutch medium-sized enterprises.


Opposing the OMEL application, Leno Merken was asked to provide evidence of genuine use of its ONEL mark. While it was undisputed that Leno Merken had used its trade mark genuinely in the Netherlands, Hagelkruis argued that use of the trade mark in one country was insufficient to constitute genuine use within the meaning of Article 15 CTMR. Basing its opinion on the Joint Statements of the European Commission and the European Council in relation to the CTMR, Leno Merken also argued that the CTM system had always been promoted as a flexible system in terms of the extent of geographical use and that this was one of its strengths: by proving use of a CTM in one country, the owner obtains protection in a large territory and can retain this protection by meeting relatively low requirements.

Leno Merken asked the BOIP to rule that its ONEL trade mark had been genuinely used within the Community and to reject the application to register OMEL. Hagelkruis, in response, emphasised that the two trade marks would not be used in the same territories, adding that it totally disagreed with Leno Merken's arguments that use of a CTM in one country should suffice to preserve that trade mark. In its view, the CTMR requires use "within the Community" -- which is not the same as use "in one member state".

Decision of the BOIP

The BOIP ruled that, based on ECJ case law, explanatory notes such as the Joint Statements are not legally binding (ECJ, Antonissen, C-292/89, 26 February 1991). Further, the findings in the Joint Statements were legally challengeable and were at odds with the second, third and sixth recitals to the CTMR.

The BOIP pointed out that it would lead to undesirable results if the territory of the Community was put on the same level as one member state. The EU had expanded to include 27 member states – a huge territory with a total population of over 500 million – and was expected to expand even further. The BOIP stated that, in view of this, use in only one country does not justify the broad protection provided by a CTM. To justify the exclusive right of a CTM, the mark must be genuinely used; but an exclusive right that reaches far beyond (or, in any event, beyond) the territory in which the trade mark is actually used would result in barriers to the free movement of goods and services within the internal market.

ECJ ruling awaited ...

Concluding that use of a trade mark in one country is insufficient for the requirement of genuine use within the meaning of Article 15 CTMR, the BOIP rejected the opposition and allowed OMEL to be entered in the trade marks register.

The European Court of Justice has not yet had an opportunity to rule on this issue, but we can expect a decision along similar lines as those discussed above. CTM owners will have to carefully check where their trade mark is being used before opposing later applications".

The IPKat begs to differ. He thinks this decision is wrong in principle and potentially damaging for businesses with trade marks. It would also be strange if the single territory of the Community adopted a different principle from that operating in member states, where the use of a trade mark in just one small corner of a very large jurisdiction is still regarded as genuine if it fulfils other criteria of use. The result may also be that a mark which has been used in the course of business in one member state only will fail to be regarded as genuinely used in revocation proceedings under Article 51 [Aha, says Merpel -- '51' is '15' in reverse!].

Both Kats are sure that this will not be the last word on the subject, and that Professor Gielen will be sure to come to put them right!

Same shape, different colour, different trade mark: Dutch court blesses interoperable toy bricks

From the IPKat's much valued friend and scholar Dirk Visser (Klos Morel Vos & Schaap; Professor of Intellectual Property Law at Leiden University) comes news of last week's decision of the Hoge Raad -- the Dutch Supreme Court -- in Case LJN BJ6999, Lego Nederland B.V. c.s v Mega Brands Inc c.s. In this decision the court upheld the decision by the Court of Appeal of ’s-Hertogenbosch that the 'fit-alike' building blocks manufactured by Mega Brands are not slavish imitation of Lego bricks.

According to the courts, there is a need for standardisation (compatiblility and interchangeability) which in this instance justified the imitation. There is however a caveat: the lawful imitator is still under an obligation to avoid confusion as much as possible. The use of other colours and the application of a trade mark other than LEGO are however enough to avoid confusion in this case.

The IPKat says thanks to Dirk and wonders how long some countries will be allowed to keep their 'slavish imitation' remedies in the wake of increasing pressure to ensure that the same activities -- in the absence of specific and identifiable IP rights -- are either permitted or prohibited across all 27 European Union Member States. Merpel says, building with these little bricks is great fun, but have you ever tried pulling them apart again when all you've got are paws?

You can read the entire judgment in the original Dutch here, or lovingly translated into English here.

Incredible Lego creations here
Coping with Lego addiction here
Swallowed Lego pieces here, here and here

GGF lawyer questions Pirate Bay sale

And yet another chapter in the Pirate Bay saga (see the IPKat's earlier posts here and here): AP and the German magazine Der Spiegel now report that Ricardo Dijkstra, a lawyer acting for the would-be-buyer Global Gaming Factory X (GGF), today announced in an Amsterdam court that his client would only buy the Pirate Bay site if the site could be turned it into a "legitimate business."

Our readers may recall that it had been announced at the end of June that the file-sharing site had been sold to the Swedish gaming company GGF, who had reportedly paid 60m Swedish kronor (£4.7m) for this purchase.

GGF's latest announcement was made during a hearing in a civil case, which has been brought against Pirate Bay and GGF in the Netherlands by Stichting Brein, a Dutch copyright holders association.

Hatemail Woman in Facebook Dead Cat Bag Privacy Horror Scandal

The IPKat has just received news of a terrible tale involving a dead cat, not to mention some serious issues involving live humans, thanks to Allard Ringnalda (Research assistant, Centrum voor Intellectueel Eigendomsrecht, Utrecht University, and the co-author of a book which the IPKat would love to read if it wasn't for his linguistic ineptitude). Allard writes, on behalf of his institute and, in particular on behalf of the IPKat'd scholarly friend Professor Willem Grosheide, as follows:

"Last week, a Dutch artist known by the name of ‘Tinkebell’ [IPKat note: real name, Katinka Simonse] published a book --Dearest TINKEBELL-- which contained a collection of hate mail. She received this hate mail during the years 2004-2008 after she – and I am sorry to have to tell you this – killed her cat (who is reported to have been seriously ill at the time), skinned him, and made him into a purse [IPKat note: This appears to have been the subject of a book published in 2004, My dearest cat Pinkeltje]. This work of art (its interpretations vary from a protest against the treatment of animals and pets to a comment on fashion) attracted quite some attention through her website, and some 1,000 visitors felt the urge to inform the artist about their disapproval of this type of art. I’ll not reproduce the expletives used in these e-mails here, but I’m sure you can imagine their content.

Those e-mails led to a new project, the book titled Dearest TINKEBELL. Not only does this book contain all the hatemail received by the artist; it also holds all sorts of information about its senders. Every e-mail is accompanied by photographs and information (‘profiles’) from the senders, found on various publicly accessible websites (such as FaceBook and LinkedIn). It allows the reader to find out what the sender of the e-mail lookes like, where they live, what their hobbies are, where they work … The result is a rather interesting experiment in anonymity, online privacy, shame, and voyeurism. However, as I’m sure you’ve guessed, there is also a very interesting legal dimension to it.

The publication of the book is presently causing some sort of a stir among (legal) scholars in the Netherlands, and perhaps reporting it will lead to some interesting comments on your website too. The book raises all sorts of interesting questions on privacy, copyright (both in the e-mails, which would probably be protected by copyright under the recent Endstra-Tapes case law of our highest court [see here and here], and on the publically available material (pictures, text) on websites), libel, the need for an exceptio artis, etc. If you’re interested, you can find more information in an English translation of an article that appeared in a newspaper last week, which describes the project and the contents of the book. It is found here".

The IPKat is horrified to think what is done to cats for the sake of art, even if they are fast coming to the end of their ninth and final lives. However, from the point of view of the publication of letters not intended for publication, he remembers fondly William Donaldson's The Henry Root Letters, in which a hilarious set of genuine celebrity responses to a set of well-aimed hoax letters from a wealthy wet-fish merchant became a popular read without seeming to draw any threats of legal action.  

Right: never trifle with a kitten ...

The same formula was adopted by Brian Bethell in The Defence Diaries of W. Morgan Petty, when he published genuine responses to the protagonist's hoax letters in support of the attempt to make his home at 3 Cherry Drive, Canterbury, a Nuclear-Free Zone (Merpel adds: how are the mighty fallen -- you can now purchase this work for just one penny from Amazon].  Nowadays he suspects people would sue, since (i) we live in litigious times, (ii) no-one except the IPKat and his readers has a sense of humour any more and (iii) there is no implied licence to publish a response to a hoax letter.   But let's hear from the readers: what do you have to say?

More than one way to kill a cat here

More than one way to skin a cat here