Lawsuit: Dismissed Costco v. .CostcoRep2439 [2024] DCR 14

[dygyee]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Costco (Represented by dygyee)
Plaintiff

v.

.CostcoRep2439
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF:
Recently the defendant, .CostcoRep2439, has created an unofficial company called "Costco Wholesale." While the defendant acknowledges that Costco already exists, he claims that Costco Wholesale is a different name and is therefore allowed. According to the Intellectual Property Act, a breach of trademark occurs when someone "Engages in one or more of the following actions: Producing, replicating or impersonating recognizable signs, designs, or expressions that identify a company, product, or service." By naming his company Costco Wholesale, the defendant has violated the Intellectual property act. The defendant has also advertised his business as Costco, not Costco Wholesale on multiple occasions.

I. PARTIES
1. Costco (Owned by Xerxesmc)
2. dygyee (CLO of Costco)
3. .CostcoRep2439 (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. In early may, 2024, the defendant, .CostcoRep2439, started advertising his store which he named Costco Wholesale.
2. To the knowledge of the Plaintiff, the Defendant has not officially registered his company, which means he has no DOC approval.
3. Multiple players have asked clarifying questions asking if this is the same as the real, OG Costco, which shows that whether the defendant intended to or not, he has impersonated the real Costco with the name of his store.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach of trademark as defined by the Intellectual property act.
2. Under laws 11.0 it states "Your company’s name can’t be similar to another one."

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $1,000 in Punitive damages
2. $500 in legal fees
3. An injunction requiring the defendant to both change the name of his company, and stop advertising any company with the same or similar name to Costco.

EVIDENCE
Exhibit A: Proof of defendant acknowledging the existence of Costco, as well as as proof of Defendant's ownership of his store "Costco Wholesale"

Exhibit B: Proof of Defendant advertising/calling his store Costco

Exhibit C: Costco's business registration

https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/costco.5398/#post-38192

LIST OF WITNESSES (To be finalized later):
1. Tan_Head
2. Sumo_MC
3. Neemfy
4. lcn
5. Xerxesmc

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 6th day of May 2024

 

[xtub12345]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

.CostcoRep2439 is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Costco v. .CostcoRep2439.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[dygyee]

Your honor, I believe the Defendant has failed to appear within the allotted time.

 

[xtub12345]

As this case would normally have ended in default judgment and in the Public Defender Program Court Policy it states "A Civil Case would otherwise result in Default Judgement and the Defendant has no Forums account and no Discord account in the DemocracyCraft Discord server." and as the Defendant has neither, this case is in recess pending a PD.

 

[dygyee]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

The Plaintiff move that the court rule in a default judgement.

1. The Defendant, even without a discord account, knew or should have known about this case due to the court sending him a summons message in game.

2. The request by the courts for a public defender is valid, however it has been well over 48 hours since the court's request for a public defender, and it has been well over a week since the filing of this case. According to the constitution, everyone is entitled to a speedy trial, and this is the complete opposite of that.

DATED: This 15th day of May 2024

 

[xtub12345]

The Motion for Summary Judgement is denied.

1. While it is true an in-game summons was issued, the Court Policy as written by the Supreme Court under the authorization given to the judiciary under the Save the Public Defender Program Act states that if any of the conditions are met, then a Public Defender will be called, therefore a Public Defender has been called.

2. The Public Defender program is currently made up of 1 person, meaning it takes some time for every case to get assigned so as to not overload them. While it is true that every citizen has the right to a speedy trial, they also have the right to a fair trial, and I in good conscious can not deem accepting a motion such as this without at least giving the time needed for an Answer to Complaint to be posted, as fair.

While I do understand that it might be annoying waiting for a Public Defender to be assigned, the defendant has the same rights as you do.

That said, this court is still in recess pending a PD.

 

[dygyee]

Your honor it has been well over 2 weeks since this case has been filed. The Plaintiff respects the decision of the court to appoint a public defender for the Defendant, however the extreme wait time is a violation of the Plaintiff's right to a speedy trial.

With that being said, the Plaintiff would like to make a request to the court that they establish a time limit for a public defender to be appointed to this case to prevent any further, unnecessary delay.

 

[dygyee]

Your honor, respectfully, this is getting ridiculous. It has been almost a month since filing this case with no response from the Defendant or a Public Defender. I understood your ruling for asking for a public defender as well as your statement saying that it takes time for the public defender(s) to get to each case, however it has been almost a month. Surely this is violating the right to a speedy trial.

Once again, I am asking the court to either set a time limit for the public defender to file a response, or for a summary/default judgement to be given. Thank you for your understanding.

 

[SumoMC]

Your honor, respectfully, this is getting ridiculous. It has been almost a month since filing this case with no response from the Defendant or a Public Defender. I understood your ruling for asking for a public defender as well as your statement saying that it takes time for the public defender(s) to get to each case, however it has been almost a month. Surely this is violating the right to a speedy trial.

Once again, I am asking the court to either set a time limit for the public defender to file a response, or for a summary/default judgement to be given. Thank you for your understanding.

Mr Dygee as a former member of this body you should be well aware of the fact that public defenders are hard to come by given the type of job it is, the demands of the job, and more importantly the lack of money that comes with it. Currently the court has one public defender that is trying his best to keep up with a very demanding court, he is juggling more cases then can be reasonably expected.

Your client is entitled to a fair and speedy trial yes, on the other hand the defendant is also entitled to a defense attorney provided by the court. We understand your concerns and we hear them, as do all the other cases pending a public defender. We ask that you keep your composure and have patience with the court as we search for another PD and get one assigned to your case.

(I am responding to this due to the fact that the PDP is managed by the SCR and with the consent of the presiding magistrate.)

 

[ko531]

I am the new Public Defender Director and Just been made aware of this case needing a PD

I will respond within the next 24 hours if given the opportunity

 

[ko531]

MOTION TO DISMISS

Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction)​

Dygyee is suing on behalf of Costco as the CLO of Costco under the ownership of xerxesmc. The only issue is xeresmc no longer owns Costco meaning Dygyee has no right to sue due to being Costco's CLO. As of Feburary 10th 2024 the Business Portal no longer exists meaning in order to continue having your company registered with the DOC you had to do it in game. Sadly for xerxesmc they have never been online on or after Feburary 10th meaning they never registered Costco with the DOC and actually no longer owns Costco as EchoTheOriginal registered their business under the name of Costco

For the reasons of no longer owning the business of Costco this case must be dismissed as Dygyee has no Personal Jurisdiction or Standing.

 

[SumoMC]

The plaintiff has 48 hours to respond to the Motion to Dismiss

 

[ko531]

Your Honor, Its been over 48 hours and I wish to have a ruling on my Motion to dismiss

 

[SumoMC]

Motion to Dismiss is hereby Granted for lack of personal jurisdiction.