Search results

  1. U

    Lawsuit: Adjourned Lemonade Corp & VerniciaS Vs. Hoardco [2022] FCR 37

    Your honor, he have only been made aware by our client of a conversation that Alex initiated with Vernicia on 5/10. In the the conversation Alex attempts to disrupt the court proceedings by going around the plaintiffs lawyers. He claimed that he had spoke with the plaintiffs team, however he...
  2. U

    Lawsuit: Adjourned Lemonade Corp & VerniciaS Vs. Hoardco [2022] FCR 37

    Your honor, I would like to strike Alex's "remarks" in the second paragraph. His remarks are outside the scope of the question and speculative. Alex is not a professional witness on the subject of the plaintiffs organizations and their dealings. The witness is giving testimony that does not...
  3. U

    Lawsuit: Adjourned Lemonade Corp & VerniciaS Vs. Hoardco [2022] FCR 37

    My apologies, but where are restrictions made against witness questioning? I couldn't find anything codified that limits how to question witnesses.
  4. U

    Lawsuit: Adjourned Lemonade Corp & VerniciaS Vs. Hoardco [2022] FCR 37

    Plaintiff exhibit C, shows a conversation between yourself and Olisaurus. In your conversation at lemonade, you said this, “Id like these shulkers full of items taken down as it is my system.” You said yourself that Lemonade had limited trade in the shulker industry. If your goal was to...
  5. U

    Lawsuit: Adjourned Lemonade Corp & VerniciaS Vs. Hoardco [2022] FCR 37

    So for clarification, you made the trademark to prevent your competitors from increasing their shulker sales? This is a yes or no question.
  6. U

    Lawsuit: Adjourned Lemonade Corp & VerniciaS Vs. Hoardco [2022] FCR 37

    Alex, you mentioned in your testimony that you know that the selling of shulker boxes has had a place in DC trading for a long time, that you had purchased shulker boxes filled with items. Did you create the trademark to prevent Lemonade and VernicaS from increasing their shulker sales?
  7. U

    Lawsuit: Adjourned Lemonade Corp & VerniciaS Vs. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 36

    Your honor, throughout these proceedings the defense has not been able to disprove that the DEC is responsible for the existing trademark. They have spent much of their arguments against the amounts requested in the prayers for relief. As the plaintiff has tried to cling closer to the facts and...
  8. U

    Lawsuit: Adjourned Lemonade Corp & VerniciaS Vs. Hoardco [2022] FCR 37

    I still object on relevance. Lemonade Co has multiple sub shops under it’s administration. Whether or not some of the subsidiaries have closed has no bearing on the trademark issue. Nor does it relate to the damages caused to the shulker industry.
  9. U

    Lawsuit: Adjourned Lemonade Corp & VerniciaS Vs. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 36

    Your honor, I apologize for interrupting, but who is representing the commonwealth?
  10. U

    Lawsuit: Adjourned Lemonade Corp & VerniciaS Vs. Hoardco [2022] FCR 37

    Objection to question 2 your honor, the witness is using references to hearsay. He “heard” from a second source. Which is not admissible testimony.
  11. U

    Lawsuit: Adjourned Lemonade Corp & VerniciaS Vs. Hoardco [2022] FCR 37

    Your honor, I apologize , I misworded my objection to Trent's second question. The proper objection would be on the grounds of Improper Evidence. as there is no context.
  12. U

    Lawsuit: Adjourned Lemonade Corp & VerniciaS Vs. Hoardco [2022] FCR 37

    Objections Claxx and KeyBoardAlex Objection on ground of relevance, whether or not the lemonade shop was temporarily closed does not address or pertain to TheHoardCo trademarking a “system” that does not belong to them. Objection on grounds of speculation, the witness cannot answer a question...
  13. U

    Lawsuit: Adjourned Lemonade Corp & VerniciaS Vs. Hoardco [2022] FCR 37

    Your honor, I would like to make a response to this objection
  14. U

    Lawsuit: Adjourned Lemonade Corp & VerniciaS Vs. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 36

    Opening Statement Your honor, On May 1st, TheHoardCo filed a request on the DEC forum for a Trademark of “Shulker Systems” The Secretary of the Department of Education and Commerce Trentrick_Lamar posted a reply to the request stating “Accepted Your trademark now has official recognition and...
  15. U

    Lawsuit: Adjourned Lemonade Corp & VerniciaS Vs. Hoardco [2022] FCR 37

    Your honor, the plaintiff had made an address on the two objections.
  16. U

    Lawsuit: Adjourned Lemonade Corp & VerniciaS Vs. Hoardco [2022] FCR 37

    Your honor, the plaintiff wishes to extend and apology. We had overlooked providing the proof of attorney client agreements. Which I will now provide. In response to the objection made by the defense. In regard to Exhibit C, The following screenshots were provided by Olisaurus as they are...
  17. U

    Lawsuit: Adjourned Lemonade Corp & VerniciaS Vs. Hoardco [2022] FCR 37

    Your honor, The motion to dismiss predicts what our arguments are; however, we have not had a chance to place our arguments as we have only presented a filing statement and not an opening. The facts of this case have proven that TheHoardCo did in fact file a trademark. However the trademark is...
  18. U

    Lawsuit: Adjourned Lemonade Corp & VerniciaS Vs. Hoardco [2022] FCR 37

    Your honor, due unforeseen circumstances, I will be taking over for RelaxedGV. Until such a time as he can resume as primary in this case. Due to this turn of events, I would to request an additional 24 hours to provide an adequate response.
  19. U

    Lawsuit: Adjourned Lemonade Corp & VerniciaS Vs. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 36

    In addition your honor, The plaintiff would like to request a sidebar discussion with yourself and both parties representation.
Back
Top