Lawsuit: Adjourned Virtus Group v. VirtuBank [2024] DCR 10

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unseatedduke1

Unseatedduke1

Redmont School of Law
Construction & Transport Department
Supporter
Popular in the Polls
Unseatedduke1
Unseatedduke1
Constructor
Joined
Jan 7, 2024
Messages
774
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION​


Virtus Group (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff

v.

VirtuBank (Luca_1011)
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On February 27, 2024, the Plaintiff discovered the existence of a company named "VirtuBank," which is owned by Luca_1011. The name of this company bears a striking resemblance to the Plaintiff's own group named "Virtus Group." This similarity raised concerns regarding potential legal implications and fraudulent activities in the Plaintiff's mind. The Plaintiff instructed their law firm to issue a "cease and desist" letter; however, this communication failed to reach the Defendant as they had left from the official Discord server and remained inactive for over thirty days on the server itself. The Defendant's company “VirtuBank” constitutes a clear violation of the Intellectual Property Act, particularly in terms of breaching trademark regulations. This violation encompasses the production, replication, or impersonation of recognizable signs, designs, or expressions that are associated with a company, product, or service. By adopting the expression "Virtu," the Defendant is effectively attempting to impersonate the Plaintiff's established brand, "Virtus." Such misleading practices could lead clients to inadvertently direct funds intended for the Virtus Group to the Defendant's entity, thereby causing financial harm. Any negative associations with the Defendant's company may adversely affect the stock exchange prices of the Virtus Group. The company "Virtu" is also found to be in violation of the Taxation Act, which mandates that financial institutions must register as tax-exempt entities and fulfill reporting requirements. The Defendant's company has failed to comply with these statutory obligations.


I. PARTIES
  1. Virtus Group (V__D)
  2. VirtuBank (Luca_1011)

II. FACTS

1. The Defendant, owner of the established company "VirtuBank," is engaging in activities that constitute an attempt to impersonate the "Virtus Group," violating the Intellectual Property Act.

2. On March 15, 2024, a cease and desist letter was prepared and intended to be sent to the Defendant. However, the delivery of this letter was unsuccessful due to the Defendant's absence from the Discord platform, where communication attempts were made. The Defendant has also been inactive on the server for a period exceeding thirty days.

3. The Defendant's company is found to be in violation of the Taxation Act for its failure to register as a financial institution with the Department of Commerce (DOC) and fulfill the associated reporting requirements mandated by law.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The fraudulent activities conducted by "VirtuBank" pose a significant risk to the financial well-being of the Plaintiff's company. If individuals inadvertently direct funds to the Defendant's company instead of the Plaintiff's, it will result in financial losses and potential disruptions to the Plaintiff's business operations.

2. "VirtuBank's" failure to register as a financial institution with the appropriate regulatory authorities may negatively impact public perception and tarnish the reputation of the Plaintiff's company. This could potentially lead to a decrease in stock prices, thereby causing further financial harm to the Plaintiff.

3. The marketing efforts undertaken by the Plaintiff are being diluted by the presence of the Defendant's company, "VirtuBank," in the market. This diversion of resources and attention away from the Plaintiff's company results in financial losses attributed to marketing expenses and diminished brand visibility.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. The Plaintiff respectfully requests the court to mandate the Department of Commerce (DOC) to enforce the provisions outlined in the Taxation Act by promptly removing the Defendant's business, "VirtuBank," from the server.

2. In the event that the Defendant's business is not removed from the server, the Plaintiff urges the court to compel the DOC to rename the business to mitigate potential confusion and safeguard the Plaintiff's intellectual property rights.

3. The Plaintiff seeks $9,000 in Compensatory Damages to offset the financial losses incurred due to the diversion of marketing resources caused by the Defendant's unauthorized presence in the market. These damages are essential to restore the Plaintiff's competitive position and compensate for the financial harm suffered.

4. The Plaintiff requests $7,300 in Fraud fines to hold the Defendant accountable for their attempted fraudulent activities against the Plaintiff. These fines are to be paid to the plaintiff. Such actions undermine trust in the marketplace and warrant punitive measures to deter future misconduct and protect the interests of all parties involved.

5. The Plaintiff seeks reimbursement of legal fees in the amount of 20% of the total amount rewarded to cover the expenses incurred by their law firm in pursuing this case.


Evidence:
1711055235692.png
1711055416539.png

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 21st day of March 2024

1711055213607.png
 

Attachments

  • 2024-03-21_17.08.02.png
    2024-03-21_17.08.02.png
    1.6 MB · Views: 104
Seal_Judiciary.png



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

@lucak1011 is required to appear before the court in the case of the Virtus Group v. Virtubank. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour 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.​
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION​

Your Honor,

The 72-hour period provided to the defendant has elapsed. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that you find the defendant in contempt of court and proceed with issuing a default judgment following the terms outlined in the Writ of Summons.

Thank You
 
As defined in the Public Defender Policy, there are certain conditions in which a PD must be summoned. One of these is: "A Civil Case would otherwise result in Default Judgement and the Defendant is legally inactive (less than 6 hours of playtime in the last 30 days)." At the time of which default judgement would occur, the defendant has less than 6 hours of playtime within the last 30 days, this triggers that conditions obligating me to summon a Public Defender. The Courts do not currently have a public defender, and thus this case can not move forward. This case will be in recess until a PD is able to be summoned.

Proof of the Defendants legal activity is attached below:
image_2024-03-24_204135501.png


As mentioned before, this court is now in recess until a PD can be summoned.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Virtus Group (Represented by Dragon Law)Plaintiff

v.

VirtuBank
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defense DISPUTES The Defendant, owner of the established company "VirtuBank," is engaging in activities that constitute an attempt to impersonate the "Virtus Group," violating the Intellectual Property Act.

2. The Defense neither AFFIRMS or Denys that On March 15, 2024, a cease and desist letter was prepared and intended to be sent to the Defendant. However, the delivery of this letter was unsuccessful due to the Defendant's absence from the Discord platform, where communication attempts were made. The Defendant has also been inactive on the server for a period exceeding thirty days.

3. The Defense DISPUTES The Defendant's company is found to be in violation of the Taxation Act for its failure to register as a financial institution with the Department of Commerce (DOC) and fulfill the associated reporting requirements mandated by law.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Defendant Luca_1011 never advertised VirtuBank nor mentioned it to anyone, never in chat, DC Discord or Forums.
2. The Defendant never claimed to be a bank nor do they take deposits, give out loans or invest funds on behalf of other people. The name simply has the word bank in it, as do a few other in game db's.
3. The plaintiff fails to show where the defendant has caused harm to their client other then that they have similar names, that's the extend of it. To say that the defendant has impersonated them is so far in left field that is shouldn't even be allowed as an argument in this court.
(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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 March 2024
 
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The defense motions for a summary judgment by the court, this case has set idle for long enough
 
OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure
​
Your Honor, the defense may only seek a summary judgment when there are no disputed facts. I assumed that a former Supreme Court justice would be aware of this procedural requirement. We would be amenable to a summary judgment if the defense chooses to amend their response to the complaint and does not contest any of the allegations.
 
My apologies your honor, it seems I'm a bit rusty from my time in the legal field, i withdraw the motion. I'd ask moving forward however we keep it civil, no need for the unprofessional remarks.
 
I would like to formally apologize for my comment. I am also frustrated, as this case has been sitting for a while.
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure
​
Your Honor, the defense may only seek a summary judgment when there are no disputed facts. I assumed that a former Supreme Court justice would be aware of this procedural requirement. We would be amenable to a summary judgment if the defense chooses to amend their response to the complaint and does not contest any of the allegations.
Click to expand...
Due to the motion being withdrawn, this objection is overruled.
 
As the Defendant's counsel has issue there Answer to Complaint, we will now be moving onto discovery.

Discovery will last 7 days. Should both parties agree, discovery can end early.
 
Your Honor, We request to end discovery early.
 
The defense does not wish to end discovery early
 
As the defense has not agreed to skip discovery, the request is denied.
 
As discovery is now over, we will be moving onto opening statements. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to post their opening statement.
 
Your Honor,

I request a 72 Hour extension pending the outcome of my Confirmation Hearing due to a potential conflict
 
SumoMC said:
Your Honor,

I request a 72 Hour extension pending the outcome of my Confirmation Hearing due to a potential conflict
Click to expand...
As we have not reached your turn on opening statements, I will be denying this request at this time, feel free to request the extension once it is your turn to post opening statements.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLAINTIFF OPENING STATEMENT​


Ladies and gentlemen of the court, esteemed Judge,

Today, we stand before this honorable court to address a matter of utmost importance regarding the integrity of intellectual property rights and the prevention of fraudulent activities .

This case revolves around the actions of a former player, who, despite their disengagement from the game, has left behind a lingering presence that threatens the very fabric of fair play and lawful conduct within our community.

Our argument lies in the creation of a business entity named "VirtuBank" by the defendant, Luca_1011. This venture, bearing a name strikingly similar to our client's established group, "Virtus Group," has raised legitimate concerns regarding potential legal implications and fraudulent undertakings.

The defense may attempt to justify the defendant's actions by asserting that the inclusion of the term "bank" in the business name does not necessitate compliance with regulatory requirements if the entity does not engage in banking activities. However, let us be clear: using the term "bank" in one's business name without upholding the associated obligations is, in essence, fraudulent behavior.

We, have taken proactive steps to address this situation, including the preparation and attempted delivery of a cease and desist letter to the defendant. Our efforts to prevent further harm and uphold the integrity of our intellectual property rights have been met with silence, as the defendant, Luca_1011, is no longer an active participant within our gaming community.

In light of these circumstances, we are left with no recourse but to seek justice through the legal channels available to us.

Your Honor, Given the defendant's absence from the server and the unavailability of a new PD, we respectfully request a summary judgment for expediency and practicality. We know this may be out of the normal scope of court rule but please consider this to move this case along.

Thank you.
 
The Defense has 48 hours to post their opening statement.
 
My mistake, the public defender has recently been confirmed as a Federal Court Judge. Therefore this case is in recess until a new one can be assigned.
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLAINTIFF OPENING STATEMENT​


Ladies and gentlemen of the court, esteemed Judge,

Today, we stand before this honorable court to address a matter of utmost importance regarding the integrity of intellectual property rights and the prevention of fraudulent activities .

This case revolves around the actions of a former player, who, despite their disengagement from the game, has left behind a lingering presence that threatens the very fabric of fair play and lawful conduct within our community.

Our argument lies in the creation of a business entity named "VirtuBank" by the defendant, Luca_1011. This venture, bearing a name strikingly similar to our client's established group, "Virtus Group," has raised legitimate concerns regarding potential legal implications and fraudulent undertakings.

The defense may attempt to justify the defendant's actions by asserting that the inclusion of the term "bank" in the business name does not necessitate compliance with regulatory requirements if the entity does not engage in banking activities. However, let us be clear: using the term "bank" in one's business name without upholding the associated obligations is, in essence, fraudulent behavior.

We, have taken proactive steps to address this situation, including the preparation and attempted delivery of a cease and desist letter to the defendant. Our efforts to prevent further harm and uphold the integrity of our intellectual property rights have been met with silence, as the defendant, Luca_1011, is no longer an active participant within our gaming community.

In light of these circumstances, we are left with no recourse but to seek justice through the legal channels available to us.

Your Honor, Given the defendant's absence from the server and the unavailability of a new PD, we respectfully request a summary judgment for expediency and practicality. We know this may be out of the normal scope of court rule but please consider this to move this case along.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
I will be denying this motion at this time, as seen in the motions guide, the facts of the case must not be in dispute, which they are as seen is the answer to complaint. As I said above, we will be in recess till a new PD can be summoned.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT​

Good morning everyone. I am happy to report that I am the new PDD and therefore the office will continue operations.

I would like to preface this opening statement by drawing the honourable court's attention to the striking lack of evidence on the side of the plaintiff when it comes to their claims. The entirety of their sets of evidence consists only of what the two company names were, and they have constructed the rest of their argument around completely unproven assumptions.

Both the filing and the opening statement of the plaintiff paints an over dramatized picture of the situation at hand, while failing to address the main arguments that is in the true heart of the matter.

Beginning at the said heart, the word "Virtu" is a term that could have a myriad of meanings and intents, ranging from "Virtuous" to even "Virtual". The underscored meaning here is that the term itself is something that could be reasonably used by the defendant as simply a good, meaningful and impactful name for a potential banking business without necessary knowledge of the plaintiffs business. It is not unlikely that they may have created the name with no connection to the plaintiff. After all, the etymology isn't very unique and disconnected from this context unlike a name such as "google" that would be extremely unlikely to come up with independently.

This point could be alleviated if the plaintiff could prove in any way or form the alleged financial damages incurred by the existence of the defendants business. Not only has the plaintiff failed to show any proof of their alleged financial losses, there is little to no impact of the defendant business on the server at large. In total, on the entirety of discord (which includes the ingame chat), the name "VirtuBank" is mentioned at a total of 4 times. One time is the Government making an announcement regarding Financial Institution updates, and the other 3 instances of the company being mentioned are when the plaintiff themselves directly mentioning it in regards to the alleged breach of trademark two times, and someone responding to the plaintiff one time.
The fact that the plaintiff requests 9,000$ in compensatory damages is not only completely unfounded on any evidence, but also an outrageous misuse of the legal system.

The entire claim regarding Tax Fraud is entirely irrelevant, as not only does it have very little to do with the rest of the case, the plaintiff also completely lacks standing to be seeking any relief based on this claim. If they fail to prove the first point above, they have no negative illegitimate impact from the defendant business, in which case they do not even have a legal relation to the defendant, while if it is true, the relation is only indirect and in a way which if determined to create standing would affect the legal field in counter productive ways.

Overall, the case brought forward by the plaintiff is nothing but dramatization, designed to invoke a sense of urgency and doom in order to create a false sense of victim-hood.

We would like the court to know that we do not oppose a summary judgement at this point, unless further arguments are made by the plaintiff in which case we wish to retain our right to respond.
​
 
As neither the Plaintiff nor Defendant called any witnesses in discovery, we will now be moving onto closing statements. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to post their closing statements.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT​

Your Honor,

The defendant's creation and operation of "VirtuBank" is not merely an innocent coincidence or a matter of semantics. It is a calculated attempt to exploit the goodwill and reputation of the Virtus Group for their own gain, without regard for the potential harm inflicted upon our client. Despite the defendant's attempts to diminish the significance of their actions and downplay the potential consequences, the facts remain clear. The similarity between the names "VirtuBank" and "Virtus Group" is not a matter of happenstance but a deliberate choice made by the defendant. This choice has led to confusion among consumers, potential financial losses for our client, and a blatant violation of intellectual property laws.

Tthe defendant's failure to register as a financial institution and comply with taxation regulations only adds to the gravity of their transgressions. It demonstrates a pattern of disregard for legal obligations and a willingness to operate outside the bounds of the law for their own benefit. We urge this honorable court to hold the defendant accountable for their actions and to deliver a verdict that upholds the integrity of intellectual property rights and safeguards against fraudulent practices.

We implore the court to render a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Virtus Group, and to send a clear message that such deceptive and unlawful behavior will not be tolerated in our society. Even if monetary damages are not awarded, the failure to register and the violation of intellectual property laws necessitate the Department of Commerce (DOC) to deregister this company.

Thank You.

Thank you.
 
We will now be moving onto the defendants closing statements, they have 72 hours to post theirs.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT​

Good afternoon everyone.

As the defense, I see it nearly unnecessary even to write a closing statement for this case. The plaintiff and their legal counsel has only reiterated their original arguments, with no further proof of arguments that would be a valid rebuttal to my arguments in the Opening Statements.

They accuse us of "diminishing the significance of the consequences", yet made no attempt at rectifying the lack of proof that we have pointed out. They reiterate their claims of a confused consumer base, while again ignoring the fact that we have not only pointed out the lack of evidence of such, but also provided proof that shows otherwise.

And when it comes to the question of Taxation Regulations, we accept that it could have made a case for criminal negligence, only if there was any case for it to build upon in the first place. We reiterate our points of a lack of standing. The plaintiff may only have standing to be seeking repercussions for their intellectual property, not the failure to register.

The case brought forward against my client is nothing but theatrics, and built entirely upon how the situation sounds and feels rather than the facts at hand, compared to the law as described by our nation.

We rest our case,​
 
This case will now be in recess pending a verdict.
 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Virtus Group v. VirtuBank [2024] DCR 10

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Defendant registered the company in an attempt to impersonate Virtus Group (A Company owned by the plaintiff)
2. An attempt to send a cease and desist letter was made by the plaintiff.
3. Defendant's company is in violation of taxation act due to failure to register as a financial institution on the forums.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Defendant never advertised nor mentioned VirtuBank.
2. The Defendant never claimed to be a bank, nor operated in a way a bank does.
3. Plaintiff has failed to show that the defendant's actions caused harm to Virtus Group.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. In the Intellectual Property Act it states for a work to get Automatic Copyright and hence be entitled to the benefits that come with it, "Automatic copyright protection shall apply to both published and unpublished creative works, provided the existence of tangible proof of when an individual or entity created the "expression" or material, and that it is an individual's creation, for a period of six months." Although the Plaintiff has provided evidence that the plaintiff, did in-fact create the in-game name "VirtusGroup" as a company, it has failed to provide an accurate creation date for it.
2. Furthermore in the Intellectual Property Act it states this about cease and desist letters: "Prior to initiating legal action, a Cease and Desist letter must be sent to the alleged infringing party, allowing a reasonable time for response." As the act states, it MUST be sent to the alleged infringing party (The defendant), even though the defendant does not have discord, there are a variety of ways that this could have been delivered, in-game mail, in-game book, etc. The plaintiff has failed to prove that they did one of these other methods. And as they only attempted to send it, and not actually sent it, this legal action should not have been initiated.
3. Now we will move onto fact 3 in the plaintiff's complaint, while it is true that the defendant did not register as a financial institution, the plaintiff did not prove that the defendant tried operating as a bank in any way, and the plaintiff's claim for relief (specifically number 2) states ""VirtuBank's" failure to register as a financial institution with the appropriate regulatory authorities may negatively impact public perception", the plaintiff did not prove that this caused any actual harm to the plaintiff, and as the defense stated the defendant did not market themselves in anyway.

IV. DECISION
1. As the plaintiff has failed to meet the terms as laid out in the Intellectual Property Act and failed to prove that the defendant was in violation of the Taxation Act, this court hereby finds in favor of the defendant.

The District Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top