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