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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Objection to question 2 your honor, the witness is using references to hearsay. He “heard” from a second source. Which is not admissible testimony.
 
I will be denying this objection as nowhere in AlexTheLion's testimony did he say he heard. He says "I'm aware" meaning he knows not from someone else telling him, but from his own knowledge.
 
I don't know how long the shop was closed but the entire building was rebuilt. This is why the shop was closed.
 
dygyee said:
The objection on the basis of relevance for the second question is sustained as this court doesn't see why this question is relevant to the case, as this case is between LemonadeCo, VernicaS, and HoardCo. Not any other company.
Click to expand...
Your Honor,
I would like to rephrase my question since a misunderstood occurred. This question didn't concern any other company.
 
PiOs67 said:
Your Honor,
I would like to rephrase my question since a misunderstood occurred. This question didn't concern any other company.
Click to expand...
You may rephrase your question. You have 24 hours to do so.
 
Thank you, your Honor.

To witnesses Claxx and KeyBoardAlex:
> Was any other shop of the company LemonadeCo open while the main store was closed?

I would also like to thank all the witnesses for their time.
 
PiOs67 said:
Thank you, your Honor.

To witnesses Claxx and KeyBoardAlex:
> Was any other shop of the company LemonadeCo open while the main store was closed?

I would also like to thank all the witnesses for their time.
Click to expand...
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.
 
I will be denying this objection as the answer to this question could potentially show how much LemonadeCo lost in revenue due to this trademark.

The witness, @Claxx77 , has 24 hours from when this question was asked to answer the question.
 
PiOs67 said:
Thank you, your Honor.

To witnesses Claxx and KeyBoardAlex:
> Was any other shop of the company LemonadeCo open while the main store was closed?

I would also like to thank all the witnesses for their time.
Click to expand...
Afaik, there are a few places, for example, the lemonade lottery. I did not go to any other shops associated with lemonade while the lemonade was closed. If nothing happened such as rebuilding at other lemonade stores while lemonade was closed, other stores may be open.
 
> Was any other shop of the company LemonadeCo open while the main store was closed?
Atlas, Lucky, Milqys Shop, Veranica's Shop, Walgreens & likely more but those are the ones I know about.
 
I made a mistake, the Plaintiff my now cross-examine the current witnesses. They have 48 hours from the time this post was edited to post all of their questions for the current witnesses.
 
Last edited:
objection your honor, this is breach of procedure as the opposing council is meant to be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. This did not happen and we instead went to closing statements which makes this breach of procedure.
 
AlexTheLion said:
Obtaining this trademark registration hopefully makes me stand out to other bulk businesses as TheHoardCo stands out because of the use of the whole business having items sold in shulker boxes.

To the 2nd question. I did not want the business model of Lemonade nor Vernicas to be fully made on the mass sell of the shulkers in the store as that’s what I’ve become aware and known that I’ve trademarked. I’m aware that people have sold items in shulkers for so long in DC bids, even me bidding and winning these and having no action for them to take down their auction. This trademark was simply my idea of the business model of TheHoardCo fully based on the whole mass selling in shulker boxes.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Relaxed, I had corrected my mistake long before you posted your objection. Please only object to things before they are corrected, as there is no need to do it after.

@AlexTheLion has 24 hours from now to respond to the Plaintiffs question.
 
It was never targeted for them specifically nor any others, I even entered a voice call with Oli the day of all this and said that it was fine since he only had one line and the business was not based on that. from what I knew the trademarked protected the mass selling of shulkers in bulk as that’s what sets TheHoardCo apart. Now on the case of vernica, she had that whole section up and she never closed it down so I think that always stood the same.
 
AlexTheLion said:
It was never targeted for them specifically nor any others, I even entered a voice call with Oli the day of all this and said that it was fine since he only had one line and the business was not based on that. from what I knew the trademarked protected the mass selling of shulkers in bulk as that’s what sets TheHoardCo apart. Now on the case of vernica, she had that whole section up and she never closed it down so I think that always stood the same.
Click to expand...
So for clarification, you made the trademark to prevent your competitors from increasing their shulker sales? This is a yes or no question.
 
Id like to say no but your wording of the question "increasing their Shulker sales". Makes it seem like im stopping them from all sales of shulkers. I placed the trademark so no other business bases their idea on having their whole business based on the mass sell of shulkers.
 
AlexTheLion said:
Id like to say no but your wording of the question "increasing their Shulker sales". Makes it seem like im stopping them from all sales of shulkers. I placed the trademark so no other business bases their idea on having their whole business based on the mass sell of shulkers.
Click to expand...
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 prevent entire business models based on shulker sales, why did you approach Oli and demand that Lemonades shulkers were removed from sale?
 
The witness has approximately 20 hours left to answer the question, and to make this case go faster, all remaining questions from the Plaintiff must be posted within 24 hours of the witnesses previous answer, and all answers from AlexTheLion must be posted within 24 hours from the question.

A reminder to the Plaintiff that you may only post questions in multiple posts if your question relies on the answer to a previous question.
 
My apologies, but where are restrictions made against witness questioning? I couldn't find anything codified that limits how to question witnesses.
 
It is standard practice that all questions are asked at once unless the question relies on a previous answer. That’s how it’s been for a long time. When theres nothing that says otherwise it’s up to the presiding judge. So I will kindly request that you ask all your questions at once unless they rely on a previous answer.
 
If your goal was to prevent entire business models based on shulker sales, why did you approach Oli and demand that Lemonades shulkers were removed from sale?

So as I've stated before.... I talked with Oli in a voice chat and simply told them that the selling of more than 50% of Shulker selling is a violation of the trademark, and that its what TheHoardCo trademarked. Lemonade was going to expand the Shulker selling to the entire business model as said in a vc, but I corrected that and Oli had to make sure it was correct so therefore never expanded the business to more than 50% sells of shulkers.

In remarks to your question this was talked about between me and Oli. All this was said on May 1st and the case started May 10th. (y'all suing me.) I never pursued action and never required them to take it down, only when Lemonade knew they wanted to start a lawsuit they took it down the day of.
 
Last edited:
Utah you have 24 hours to post all remaining questions unless they rely on the answer to a question you are about to ask.
 
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 pertain to the question or has been asked for.
 
The remarks will not be stricken from the record as AlexTheLion is responding to the second part of the question when you asked him: "Why did you approach Oli and demand that Lemonades shulkers were removed from sale?"

Utah you have 24 hours to ask all of your questions to the witness unless it relies on the answer to a question you are about to ask.
 
Your Honor,

As the Managing Partner of the Redmont Law Firm and Co Council on this case i will be taking over for @PiOs67 as he is on a break.

I request that the court moves on at this time as the allotted time has more then passed for the Plaintiffs council to respond to your latest direction.
 
We will now move onto closing statements. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to provide their closing statement.
 
Your Honor, may the Prosecution present new evidence that only came available after a recent trial? Along with a 24 hour extension if this is granted due to having to edit the closing statement
 
If the evidence has become available only within the last week, I will accept the new evidence, however will only grant a 12 hours extension to post your closing statement.

You have approximately 18 hours to post your closing statement and provide any evidence that became available within the last week.
 
Your Honor,

We object to the presentation of new evidence as this case has been called to closing statements and the admission of new evidence into a closing statement is not a common practice, nor is it generally permitted. This case has gone on long enough and this is a desperate attempt by opposing council to prolong this case.
 
I will deny this objection. While allowing new evidence right before closing statements isn't a common practice, exceptions are allowed, and I have made an exception because the evidence is recent enough that it wasn't able to be posted earlier in the case. And letting in this new evidence will not prolong the case as whether or not the Plaintiff submits the evidence, their closing statement deadline is at the same time.

If you also have evidence that either rebuts the Plaintiffs new evidence, or has become available in the last week I will allow it to be presented.

On a separate note, the Plaintiff's must post and submit their closing statement and evidence within a little under 12 hours.
 
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 had not. He intentionally set out to deceive Vernicia in hopes of making a deal.
5E334E2B-BD31-4C08-A40D-79B0B0898FB6.jpeg
5E334E2B-BD31-4C08-A40D-79B0B0898FB6.jpeg
 
Closing Statement from the Plaintiffs

Throughout this trial we have seen that Hoardco owner Alexthelillion had trademarked a shulker system and not an actual good or service. The Defendant has tried to disrupt the Plaintiffs businesses by having them take down the selling of shulkers with items. The Defendant claimed they were the first to do so however Exhibit D shows they were not the first. The Defendant trademarked a system rather than a good/service (Exhibit E) making the trademark on the selling of shulkers with items null and void.

The evidence shows that not only was Hoardco not the first company to sell shulkers of items but, also trademarked a system which as stated before is not allowed by the Intellectual Property Protection Act. Despite knowing of this the Defendant still trademarked the system. The Defendant also went after Lemonadeco and VerniciaS alone and didn’t go after other shops that sell shulkers filled with items thus targeting the businesses. Even limiting the selling of them by 50% still creates a monopoly as the Defendant would gain control of that market. The Defendant uses the trademark for their own gain as they wanted to shut down Lemonadeco and VerniciaS selling of shulkers as they were maybe dragging down sales or were earning too much that Hoardco couldn’t get in.

In the Defendants witness testimony they showed that they were trying to disrupt the businesses of Lemonadeco and VerniciaS by removing this entire market from their shops despite Lemonadeco and VerniciaS selling these before Hoardco even registered the trademark over the system. The Defendant wanted the Plaintiffs to remove these shops making not only a loss in revenue for the shops but also disrupting the usual business the Plaintiffs would have.

So through these we can see that the Defendant not only trademarked a system which is not able to be trademarked. They also tried to disrupt the Plaintiffs businesses by wanting them to take down the selling of shulkers with items for their own malicious intent. The Defendant also tried to create a monopoly by stating they only wanted a max of 50% of their business which still creates a monopoly.
 
UtahCowboy20 said:
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 had not. He intentionally set out to deceive Vernicia in hopes of making a deal. View attachment 25001View attachment 25001
Click to expand...
Your Honor Objection,

The defenses council has lied, my Client did reach out to the plaintiffs council, in which they directed my client to talk to the plaintiff directly. I move to have this evidence removed and the plaintiffs to be charged with perjury.

We have proof of this conversation
 
Sumo please provide proof of the conversation between your client and the Plaintiff's council.
 
The evidence that UtahCowboy20 provided after witness testimonies will no longer be considered when making a verdict. I also hereby find UtahCowboy20 guilty of perjury and order the DOJ to give him the minimum fine of $1,000 as well as a 5 minute jail sentence.

On a separate note, the Defendant has 48 hours from now to provide their closing statement.
 
Your Honor

I request a 48 hour extension due to a horrific IRL situation
 
This extension is granted. You have 48 hours from your request to post your closing statement.
 
You're Honor, it has been beyond the 48 hour mark.
 
Sumo, you have had well over the time that was granted to you to post your closing statement. Normally I am very lenient about late responses if it has to do with an IRL issue, and although I feel that I have been lenient now, you have still not posted your closing statement despite having around 100 hours to do so. Furthermore you have still been active on forums by posting 2 bill to amend multiple acts of congress. Because of this I hereby charge you with contempt of court and order the DOJ to fine/jail you appropriately.

This court is now in recess, and a verdict will be posted as soon as possible, however because it's a long case it may take a little more time than usual to read it over.
 
Has it not been 48 hours since your request for additional time?
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Lemonade Corp and VerniciaS v. HoardCo [2022] FCR 37

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Defendant sent the Plaintiff a cease and desist letter to the Plaintiffs explaining that they couldn't sell items out of shulker boxes.
2. The Defendant can't trademark this as he wasn't the first to come up with the idea of selling items out of shulkers. This idea was brought up in a meeting right before the trademark was filed, and people had been selling items out of shulkers prior to the trademark.
3. Because of this invalid trademark, the Defendant has committed fraud.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Intellectual Property Protections act, players may file for a trademark, which the Defendant did, and it was accepted.
2. Because it was accepted, the Plaintiffs have no right to sell items out of shulkers.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. Firstly a cease and desist letter is legal, and according to section 4 of the Intellectual Property Protections act (IPP act) one is required to send a cease and desist letter when a they believe a player violated the IPP act.
2. According to the White-Collar Crack Down Act, there are many types and definitions of fraud. None of which the Plaintiffs proved that the Defendant committed.
3. Because there was a lack of any proof that the defendant committed fraud nor do any of the definitions match up with what the Defendant did, this court doesn't believe that the Defendant committed fraud.
4. According to the IPP act, a copyright is only for published and unpublished material including original literature and artistic work, such as illustration and photography. And a trademark is only for recognizable signs, designs, or expressions which identify companies, products, or services.
5. A business model of selling items out of shulkers is neither published and unpublished material nor is it a recognizable sign, design, or expressions which identify HoardCo's products, or services. A recognizable sign design or expression means things such as company logos or slogans. For example HoardCo could trademark their shulker logo however not their business model.
6. Because of this, the trademark for selling items out of shulkers isn't valid, and this trademark is null and void. This trademark should never have been accepted as automatic acceptance of a trademark is only for recognizable signs, designs, or expressions which identify companies, products, or services.
7. I think the bill should have emphasized that automatic acceptance doesn't mean that tone can trademark anything, and I think the DEC confused, both the Plaintiff and the Defendant when answering questions about trademarks.

IV. DECISION
1. Because the Plaintiffs have failed to prove any fraud which was their only claim for relief, I hereby rule in favor of the Defendant.
2. However I will also not be awarding money to HoardCo for their counterclaim as they have failed to prove any damages to HoardCo's reputation, and they are awarded no money for the Plaintiffs using shulkers because their trademark is null and void.
3. Because the trademark is null and void, both the Plaintiffs as well as the rest of the public are allowed to sell items out of shulkers.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top