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

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

UtCowboy

Esquire
Supporter
Grave Digger Change Maker Popular in the Polls Legal Eagle
UtCowboy
UtCowboy
Attorney
Joined
Jul 28, 2020
Messages
115
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION​

Lemonade Corp & VerniciaS
Represented by UtCowboy21 & RelaxedGV
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont (DEC)
Defendant


Attorney Representation
Oli & Utah.jpg

Vencicia & Relaxed.PNG


COMPLAINT
The DEC wrongly approved/filed the trademark of TheHoardCo, Thus impacting the Plaintiff’s corporate operations and trade.


WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I. PARTIES
1. Lemonade Corp
2. VerniciaS
3. The Department of Education & Commerce

II. FACTS
1. On May 1st, The DEC approved TheHoardCo’s Trademark Application of “the Shulker System”. Following the approved Trademark, TheHoardCo contacted the plaintiff’s for the purpose of ordering a cease and desist of Shulker related business.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Pursuant to the Approved Trademark TheHoardCo has repeatedly contacted the parties for the purpose of disrupting Shulker related business. This “Trademark” has placed undue strain and cause for stress on the organizations of the plaintiff’s. The Plaintiff intends to prove that the approved “Trademark” was not lawful and by allowing this Trademark to be filed the DEC has caused undue harm to the Plaintiff.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. the plaintiff's request $5,000 per Corporation
2. Additional $500 per Corporation for Attorney and Legal Fees.

Evidence

Plaintiff Exhibit A
The approval/filing of TheHoardCo Trademark

Plaintiff Exhibit B
Conversation between AlexThelilLion & Vernicia

Plaintiff Exhibit C
Conversation between trentrick_lamar & Vernicia

Plaintiff Exhibit D
Conversation between Alexthelillion & Olisaurus

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

DATED: This 9th day of May 2022
 
Last edited:
I will be recusing myself from this case, and another judge or justice will preside over this case.
 
1652152317388.png

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

The State is required to appear before the court in the case of the Lemonade Corp & VerniciaS v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 36. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
Your Honor,

The State is requesting a 24 hour extension due to unforeseen circumstances surrounding the lead prosecutor's real-life schedule.
 
Additionally 24 hours granted.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

LemonadeCorp & VerniciaS (UtahCowboy21 & RelaxedGV representing)
PLAINTIFF

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
DEFENDANT

MOTION TO DISMISS
The Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

  1. The claim that the DEC approved the trademark application is false, as shown in attached evidence “It is important to note that the DEC does not accept or deny these filings, rather they just provide a place to publicly list them.”
  2. Copyright and trademarks are automatic due to the Intellectual Property Protections act, which outlines that, “Automatic copyright shall exist for published and unpublished material provided there is tangible proof of when an individual/entity created the “expression” or material, and that it is an individual's creation for a period of 6 months.”
  3. Alex believes he acted under government approval, however, as shown in the evidence, this is not the case. The actions of the individual do not fall upon the government, as Alex filed a claim and acted at his own discretion, under his own belief/interpretation of it. As such, this lawsuit is not only filed under an incorrect nature and interpretation, but to the wrong party entirely.


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.

(The words defendant and complaint should be changed in case the motion is to dismiss a counterclaim.)

DATED: This 12th day of May 2022
 
Your honor,
The defendant has mentioned the notice that the DEC has posted regarding not having a hand in the trademark and copyrighting process. This article was edited on May 1st. The day that the DEC responded to TheHoardCos request. The Plaintiff would allege that this notice was posted in order to disguise the DECs previous hand in the Trademark and Copyright process and discourage this very suit.

The Defenses motion to dismiss statement 2, is in regard to Copyright law. Which is not what is being discussed here today as this is a matter of Trademarks. The Defense omitted the latter portion of that article which explains that copyrights pertain to works of the written word, artistic creations, and written proprietary information such as software and online publications. None of which are a matter pertaining to this case.

Lastly, The actions of Alex and TheHoardCo are not what are being highlighted here, rather the government's response to TheHoardCo’s actions. As mentioned in the filing statement, the plaintiff believes that the Government's “Acceptance” of the request was unlawful and allowed the plaintiffs organizations to feel the effects of those actions.
 
In addition your honor, The plaintiff would like to request a sidebar discussion with yourself and both parties representation.
 
UtahCowboy20 said:
Your honor,
The defendant has mentioned the notice that the DEC has posted regarding not having a hand in the trademark and copyrighting process. This article was edited on May 1st. The day that the DEC responded to TheHoardCos request. The Plaintiff would allege that this notice was posted in order to disguise the DECs previous hand in the Trademark and Copyright process and discourage this very suit.

The Defenses motion to dismiss statement 2, is in regard to Copyright law. Which is not what is being discussed here today as this is a matter of Trademarks. The Defense omitted the latter portion of that article which explains that copyrights pertain to works of the written word, artistic creations, and written proprietary information such as software and online publications. None of which are a matter pertaining to this case.

Lastly, The actions of Alex and TheHoardCo are not what are being highlighted here, rather the government's response to TheHoardCo’s actions. As mentioned in the filing statement, the plaintiff believes that the Government's “Acceptance” of the request was unlawful and allowed the plaintiffs organizations to feel the effects of those actions.
Click to expand...
UtahCowboy, do not speak out of turn. Your response had not been asked for. Responding to a motion to dismiss is not a guarantee. This is your final warning.

I will be rejecting the motion to dismiss as it does not point out anything frivolous about the initial filing.

UtahCowboy20 said:
In addition your honor, The plaintiff would like to request a sidebar discussion with yourself and both parties representation.
Click to expand...
A sidebar conversation request is granted. A discord group chat will be set up with both parties involved.
 
After a sidebar conversation with both the plaintiff and the defendant, I've decided that Milqy is no longer fit to serve as the defending attorney given his position in the Department of Education and Commerce.
The Constitution of Redmont "The Office of the Attorney General while an executive Office is to act in an unbiased fashion."
I believe that Milqy's position in the DEC has compromised Milqy bias in this case making it improper for him to serve as the defending attorney for this case.

The plaintiff has 48 hours to provide an opening statement.
 
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 documentation by the DEC.” Since its posting this has been removed and the entire platform for trademarks has been changed, in an effort to keep the DEC’s involvement with cases like this one more covert. Prior to the change of format, a trademark request would not be considered valid by the requester, or by the public until a similar reply was to be posted. But that does not solely explain why we are in court today.

The Intellectual Property Protections Act clearly defines the criteria and applicable property that is allowed by law to be protected and claimed under this act. Section 3 defines Trademarks as, “signs, designs, or expressions which identify companies, products, or services.” Yet TheHoardCo, filed a trademark for “The Shulker System.” Not an image of a Shulker, or the specific color or design of a Shulker. TheHoardCo filed to “Trademark” Shulkers as given to all players to craft and discover, in the coding of Minecraft. Your honor, this is a clear violation of the act. Firstly, The Act in question only applies to property that you personally or your company have created or founded. TheHoardCo did neither. Secondly, You can not Trademark a physical object. That kind of property protection is called a patent. TheHoardCo did not state in its request that they were Trademarking a design, they trademarked the entire Shulker Block.

However, this does not explain why the Government is at fault. The Defense would claim that the DEC has no control over what Trademarks, or Copyrights, are approved or denied. Claiming that the DEC simply files requests and has no control over what is approved. This is true to a certain degree. The entirety of section 3 states that, “ Automatic trademark shall exist for recognizable signs, designs, or expressions which identify companies, products, or services.” Where the request in question did not meet the very specific criteria of a Trademark. The government had no obligation to recognize the request. By recognizing the request and Accepting it, it is believed by the public to have the force of the law backing it.

The DEC’s choice to recognize the request even though it did not meet the requirements had a similar effect to a court precedent ruling. Many would believe that it was now reasonable to file objects and in some cases animals. Such as the case of PartyPig, who has successfully filed a “Trademark” on Pigs, demanding that those who utilize Pigs must pay royalties. (https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/pig-copy-right.12879/)

By recognizing the unlawful request by TheHoardCo, the government opened the door of unlawful harassment on the plaintiffs organizations, as seen by Plaintiff Exhibits B & D. Had the DEC not “Accepted” the unlawful request, TheHoardCo would not have approached the plaintiff’s causing unnecessary distress and potential organizational disruption.
 
The State has 48 hours to provide their opening statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Lemonade Corp & VerniciaS
PLAINTIFF

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont (DEC)
DEFENDANT

OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor, opposing counsel,

There are many flaws with the plaintiff's case, and, as outlined below, these points explain why the Department of Education and Commerce is not at fault in the case brought before the court:

1. The actions that the plaintiff claims cause them damages were not performed by the Defendant in this case. The action done by the Department of Education and Commerce (from hereon referred to as the 'DEC') was one merely of recognition of a document which was already afforded legality under codified law. The DEC does not encourage, approve, nor were they even aware of the messages sent by HoardCo to the plaintiffs. Suing the DEC in a private matter such as this is unreasonable.

2. Addressing the first, and much more valuable, prayer for relief, the plaintiffs never claimed to have ceased operations because of messages sent by HoardCO, nor did they claim any other form of direct financial harm. There is no evidence whatsoever that the plaintiffs, with the exception of legal fees, had any financial damages done to them as a result of events brought forth in this case. The plaintiffs have failed to provide a reason for the amount listed in the prayers for relief, and expecting the DEC to pay $10,000 for a mistake which was not made by them is beyond any norm set previously, and beyond one which should be set. Emotional damages hold little-to-no legal ground, with the courts affording them only a few times. The role of the court is solely to right a wrong, there is no place to determine an emotional factor, especially when there are no provable damages whatsoever. It is beyond evident there have no damages anywhere near the amount of $10,000 in the case filed.

3. Regarding the second prayer for relief, by proving the DEC is not at fault we are proving there is no grounds for them to cover legal fees, as requested by the Plaintiffs. The claims in regards to an approval made by the DEC are incorrect and a mischaracterization of events which took place.

4. As mentioned above, the DEC is not at fault within this case. As their evidence shows, the DEC had no role in accepting the trademark. It is unfair to blame the DEC for something which they did not do, and these claims are wrong. The Plaintiffs believe the harm was done by the DEC by an 'approval' of a trademark, but, by their own logic, there was no approval which took place. The DEC cannot be held liable for an action which both parties agree upon was within their legal bounds, like the DEC not having the power to approve any trademarks as that is inherent.

5. While the Plaintiffs have yet to outright claim it to be a responsibility of the DEC to regulate the actions of trademark holders more closely, it seems to be implicitly implied. The DEC cannot be held responsible for trademarks, rather trademarks and similar copyright issues are of one pertaining to a particular individual and/or business, and not a situation for the federal government to hold a stance within.

6. If the DEC were to attempt to regulate trademarks to the degree the Plaintiffs seem to believe they already do, they would be in direct violation of their constitutional authority. Disputes between two or more companies are private disputes, not one for the government to be a deciding factor between. This is why we have the court system we do. The DEC is not a regulator of trademarks, copyrights, etc. simply because the constitution grants that power upon the courts.

As a final note, I believe its worth mentioning, the Plaintiff's counsel has raised regards to a recently filed trademark surrounding pigs. The Plaintiff has stated that that individual has 'successfully' filed a trademark request. This is misleading at best. There is no 'successful' filing of a trademark, rather the DEC is to recognize a filing. To say it was a 'successful' filing is to imply it met some criteria, which it did not. As stated above, trademarks, and the rights within them, are inherent and not decided nor approved upon by the DEC. Should an individual raise a concern with the trademark provided by the Plaintiff's counsel, or any others, it should be dealt between the concerning parties, not the federal government.

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 22nd day of May 2022
 
Last edited:
Thank you both for your statements. Does either party wish to call an witnesses or professional testimonial.
 
The plaintiff has no witnesses
 
Your honor, I apologize for interrupting, but who is representing the commonwealth?
 
The Commonwealth has 24 hours to respond to the above question.
 
Your honor, I am the lead attorney representing the commonwealth, I wrote our opening statement, however, the attorney general posted it due to my being busy at the time of the deadline, I will continue representing the commonwealth for the remaineder of this case
 
Not to speak out of turn, but I would like to verify this. Goodmorning9 is the prosecutor on this case, I apologize for any confusion. Moving forward these situations will be made known to the courts to avoid any wasted time on a simple question. Again, I apologize for this confusion, and for the time it has taken up in this case, and I assure it won’t be an issue in the future.
 
Thank you both for clarifying. At this time, the plaintiff has 48 hours to provide a closing statement.
 
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 pressing matters of the case, here is our closing statement:

According to the Intellectual Property Protections Act “Auto” Trademarks are granted when the appropriate criteria is met. Unless the appropriate criteria is met, the “Auto” Trademark does not have the required legal backing. The law states that the Trademark criteria is specified only to “recognizable signs, designs, or expressions which identify companies, products, or services.” The HoardCo Trademark does not meet any of the criteria, the filing request, requests the Trademarking of the “Shulker System.” Not the appearance, colors, setups, or any other descriptions. The Shulker System as given in the MC programming. The DEC has been given the charge of overseeing the Registry of Trademarks and Copyrights. Yet they have failed in their duty to the public to assure that the program remains lawful in accordance with the Act. If the DEC had informed TheHoardCo that the Trademark request was not valid, because of the requirements, we would not be in court today. However, the DEC and by extension the executive branch, has chosen to take the slothful approach by recognizing every request that comes onto the forum, regardless of the legal requirements and with a disregard to the Economic Fallbacks.

Yet, this misuse of the system was allowed by the DEC. Once again, the poor understanding of the codified laws has caused direct harm to innocent citizens and their corporations. It had long been the understanding of the general public that in order to have a legally binding Trademark or Copyright, The Property must be filed with the DEC and “Accepted,” Then it would be considered to be valid. While in the matter at hand, it was not legally required to recognize the Trademark, the DEC Accepted the Trademark and gave it the approval that was needed in the eyes of the public. At that point TheHoardCo organization began its contact and subsequent harassment of my clients, interrupting their businesses and operations, causing a loss of business.

The plaintiff believes that the prayers for relief are fair due to the difficulty in accurately calculating the total losses that have been done to the plaintiffs organizations. LemonadeCo has been planning an expansion of operations; this has been forced to a grinding halt due to this case and fear of legal repercussions. VerniciaS has been forced to close the Shulker operations of her business. How can you reach an honest quantification of what sales “could” have been made or the increase in sales because of an expansion of operations? Secondly, the very government that is supposed to protect and safeguard the sanctity of Redmont’s Economic Trade has allowed a vile abuse and potentially destabilizing monopoly of the “Shulker System.” It is fair that the government should willingly reimburse the citizens that have felt the blunt force of this unlawful action that the government has allowed to transpire.

In conclusion, the plaintiff believes that because the government had no legal obligation to allow the trademark to be “Accepted,” yet the DEC recognized it as so. The DEC put into motion a precedent and belief that is the root cause of my clients sufferings. Because of this, the plaintiff has requested for what they believe is a fair sum to reimburse them for their losses.

With this, the Plaintiff Rests its case.
 
Thank you. The Commonwealth has 48 hours to provide its closing statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Lemonade Corp & VerniciaS
PLAINTIFF

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
DEFENDANT

CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor, opposing counsel,

This case is a simple matter of legal action against the wrong defendant. The Plaintiff has invented the claim that the DEC is obligated to regulate trademarks, despite the law stating precisely the opposite. The Intellectual Property Protections Act states very clearly that copyright is automatic, and not regulated by the government. Nowhere in the act does it specify the claims of the Plaintiff.

As for the Plaintiff's claim that the 'Accepted' forums prefix caused confusion to them, this was a matter of a misperception with staff. The DEC had asked for the prefix to be changed to 'Filed' instead, and this was later clarified in a discussion between the Owner and the Secretary. As noted in ByeSprite v. DEC [2021] FCR 6, the DEC cannot be liable for staff actions. In [2021] FCR 6, the DEC contacted staff to update an exam but there was misperception of times between updating that lead to the conflict. Ultimately the case was dismissed as it was not under DEC's control.

The Copyrights and Trademarks section on the forums is a public registry of players who wish to keep record of copyright claims. However, since the DEC does not lawfully have the authority to regulate these claims, they have made it very clear in #government-announcements and in the information posts that these copyrights are not endorsed as official. As noted:

"Copyrights and trademarks are automatic, pursuant to the Intellectual Property Protections Act. Consequently, documentation and recognition by the DEC only acts as a legal basis for any claims made in court which are in reference to the IPP Act and do not act as official protection itself."

The quote above is an excerpt from the information thread, which the Plaintiff should have been aware of prior to filing this claim.

As explained to the Plaintiff, this legal conflict is not with the DEC, but with HoardCo for allegedly abusing the copyright law. To this fact, the Plaintiff has even admitted that HoardCo is responsible, furthering the Commonwealth's claim of a lack of liability, given [2022] FCR 37. Why else is the Plaintiff suing two separate entities - both HoardCo and the Commonwealth, for the same situation?

To conclude, the Plaintiff has made a range of claims to justify compensation of over $10,000. However they have not provided any evidence to corroborate such claims. How did these companies allegedly lose $5000 each? Is there a record of their past shulker box sales? How can this be justified if the Plaintiff cannot even prove, nor explain, the details of these "damages".

In conjunction to this, the Plaintiff has also demanded several thousand in [2022] FCR 37 from HoardCo. Despite asking for all this money in two separate cases, the Plaintiff has not explained why they require compensation from both the DEC in this case, and TheHoardCo. This prayer for relief is seemingly above reproach and this case is to the wrong defendant.

With this, the Commonwealth rests our case. Thank you, your Honor.

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 30th day of May 2022
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Lemonade Corp & VerniciaS Vs. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 36

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Department of Education and Commerce “accepted” a copyright/trademark.
2. The “accepted” copyright/trademark was used as justification for a cease and desist request by Hoard Co causing a loss of profit and stress on both companies
3. The Department of Education and Commerce is at fault for the Copyright and Trademark registry mismanagement by allowing an item not given copyright/trademark protections legal backing.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Department of Education and Commerce is not obligated to regulate trademarks and copyright registration. The Department merely provides a place for trademarks and copyrights to be written.
2. Since copyright and trademarks are granted automatically, the Department of Education and Commerce can not regulate what is and isn’t a valid copyright/trademark. The registry merely provides a location for copyright/trademarks to be easily accessible.
3. The Department of Education and Commerce cannot be faulted for something that they have no regulatory power over.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. Copyright and Trademark protections are automatic protection and don’t require any department’s approval. The Department of Education and Commerce has made a system not to accept or reject these requests but to keep a running list of people who CLAIM to have copyright/trademark protections. However, copyright/trademarks that are filed under the copyright and trademark registry do not provide any legal protections, it only provides a running tally of claims.

2. In the opinion of the Federal Court, the Commonwealth's wording was confusing and misleading. As stated in the original release of the Copyright and Trademark Registry “The DEC is now offering to officially recognize and document copyrights and trademarks in order to provide a legal basis for claims made in court in reference to protections applied by the Intellectual Properties Protection Act.” As stated in the Intellectual Property Protection Act, copyright and trademark protections are granted automatically. Whether something is filed in the Copyright and Trademark Registry does not provide it legal basis. But that is exactly what Hoard Co. used in order to provide a legal basis for their cease and desist of selling goods in the “shulker system.” At this time, Copyright and Trademark Registry holds no legal basis. The registry itself is poorly managed and since copyrights and trademarks are granted automatically, it’s not about who can put it on the registry first, but who can prove that they had the original idea. For the Department of Education and Commerce to claim that the Copyright and Trademark registry has a legal basis when it in fact has no legal basis in copyright/trademark claims has misled companies to abuse copyrights and trademarks.

3. Throughout this case, the plaintiff has failed to prove company profit loss as a direct result of the Department of Education and Commerce's misleading statement in regards to the legal basis the registry has on copyright/trademark claims.


IV. DECISION
I hereby rule in favor of the plaintiff's Lemonade Corp & VerniciaS.

I will be granting a modified prayer for relief due to both companies' losses not being proven or shown in this court. I hereby order the following:
The Commonwealth is ordered to compensate both companies:
$500 in compensatory damages to each company - for a total of $1,000
$500 in attorney fees to each company - for a total of $1,000
The Commonwealth has one hundred twenty (120) hours to pay each company.


The Federal Court thanks all involved. This case is hereby adjourned.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top