Lawsuit: Adjourned Bardiya_King v. Reveille FC [2024] FCR 82

Status
Not open for further replies.
@Gertis has 24 Hours to answer the questions or be held in contempt.
 
@Gertis is hereby held in contempt and ordered to answer the questions.
 
Your honor, it has been over a week. The plaintiff requests that we continue.
 
We will now be moving into closing statements, plaintiff as 72 Hours to submit
 
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

We are here today because the defendant failed to honor the sale of the club to the plaintiff. It has been clearly established during the testimonials that the club was sold to the plaintiff during a Discord call. The evidence also shows that no in-game company with the same name existed during the sale of the club, further validating the plaintiff's claim. The defense’s sole argument is that the plaintiff has no grounds because, as they claim, "the Defendant owns Reveille FC" which is untrue. As we have already proven, the defendant did not retain ownership; the club was sold.

At this point, it is the defense that lacks any valid grounds for their claim. Additionally, this case has been ongoing for almost three months, and the plaintiff still does not have rightful ownership of the club. This delay has caused significant inconvenience, and the plaintiff deserves to be properly compensated for it.

We respectfully ask that you consider these points when reaching your verdict.

Thank you, Your Honor.
 
Your honor, it has been over a week. May we continue?
 
Your honor?
 
Apologies to all parties involved, this case was missed internally following Former Chief Justice SumoMC's resignation.

The Defense has 72 hours from this message to post their closing statement.
 
The 72 hour period for the Defense to file a closing statement has elapsed. Court is hereby in recess pending verdict.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Bardiya_King v Reveille FC [2024] FCR 82

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff holds exclusive ownership rights to the name 'Reveille FC'
2. The Defendants thus violated the Intellectual Property Act by maintaining an in game business of the same name
3. As a result of the theft of intellectual property, the Plaintiff suffered Emotional Damages in the form of psychological harm upon discovering that they had been potentially cheated, and Loss of Enjoyment due to their subsequent inability to manage the soccer team.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The official records, as per the DemocracyCraft Business Plugin, record Louder_Leo as the owner of Reveille FC.
2. The lack of written contract invalidates the perported transfer of ownership.
3. The Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence regarding Gertis' former ownership of the club.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The court recognises that the official records note Louder_Leo as the official owner of the business 'ReveilleFC'. However, it can be seen in Exhibits A,B & E that a contractual agreement (verbal) had taken place and both parties involved have confirmed this. During witness testimony, (former) club owner Gertis confirmed that they had 50/50 ownership with Louder_Leo at the time of sale. They did not clarify whether they had sold their 50% share of the club or the entire club to the Plaintiff. As such, the court brings attention to the proof of representation submitted by the Defendant's lawyer in regards to their capacity to represent Louder_Leo. Here, Louder_Leo confirms that they 'are not an owner of the club'.

As such, the court can establish that a verbal contract involving the sale of the club did take place, and evidence and testimony seems to lend to the notion that Gertis sold 100% of the club to the Plaintiff.
2. The Plaintiff suggests they suffered psychological harm from discovering that their intellectual property had been infringed upon. The Defense offered no rebuttal regarding this claim.
3. The Plaintiff suggests they suffered a Loss of Enjoyment due to being unable to manage their soccer team. The Defense offered no rebuttal regarding this claim. The Court sees that the Defense had 'erroneously' used the name ReveilleFC within their business name, but the Court does not see how this restricts the Plaintiff from managing the club in any way shape or form.

IV. DECISION
The Federal Court rules in favour of the Plaintiff, granting a modified prayer of relief.
The Defendants are to be fined a total sum of $12,000 as compensatory damages for unjustly using the name 'Reveille FC', a total sum of $2000 for emotional damages and loss of enjoyment suffered by the Plaintiff, and a total sum of $4000 in legal fees.

THE FEDERAL COURT THANKS ALL INVOLVED.

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top