And what do we have here? OUR FIRST #THEHOBBY LAWSUIT OF 2023?!?!?
We did it! Just four days in (it was filed yesterday) and we're already basking in trading card litigation!
The lawsuit is captioned Drob Collectibles & Ronaldinho v. Leaf, and at first impression it appears to be the flipside of the Leaf v. Ronaldinho filed in December of last year.
BUT, there's a little bit more here.
So...who wants to do a live read of this bad boy?
But before we get into the new Ronaldinho/Leaf lawsuit, if you'd like a refresher on the month-old Leaf/Ronaldinho lawsuit, here ya go:
So, this new lawsuit is the flipside of Leaf v. Ronaldinho. That lawsuit was brought by Leaf asking the court to tell Ronaldinho to stop making legal allegations against it since Leaf alleges it and Ronaldinho have a license agreement that allows Leaf to produce Ronaldinho cards.
This one, however, Ronaldinho throws the entire kitchen sink and Leaf, alleging TEN different causes of actions including violations of the right of publicity...to trademark dilution...to unjust enrichment...to false advertising...etc., etc.
The lawsuit starts off recounting Ronaldinho's history in football (soccer for us United States-ers)...
...and mentions that Drob is a plaintiff here too because that is who Ronaldinho has assigned his IP rights to.
As in all trademark lawsuits, this one then lengthily describes how Ronaldinho has used his trademarks/nicknames on products and also alleges that his nickname/marks are famous.
The lawsuit then describes Leaf's alleged "Infringing Activities" and "Fraudulent Activities."
Starting first with the alleged infringing activities, the plaintiffs allege that Leaf without permission advertised and sold cards using Ronaldinho's name, likeness, picture, etc...
This section is the flipside of Leaf's lawsuit. Basically, Leaf says, "Look motherfuckers, we have a contract with Ronaldinho" while the plaintiffs here say, "Bullshit you do. That 'license' is not a legal document and besides it doesn't cover all years."
Paraphrasing slightly.
So, it's basically a he-said, she-said over what this one-paragraph document covers.
TAKE HOME LESSSON: IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A CONTRACT WITHOUT AMBIGUITY, MAYBE GO BEYOND ONE PARAGRAPH.
The alleged fraudulent activities of Leaf section is juicier.
Here, the plaintiffs allege Leaf defrauded athletes and consumers by placing counterfeit autographs on its cards...including Ronaldinho.
HOLY SHIT, RONALDINHO WENT THERE.
HE USED THE "C" WORD: COUNTERFEIT.
To back this up, plaintiffs allege that in August 2021, Ronaldinho signed 1,000 autos of "jerseys and numbers" and no point signed Leaf's cards or stickers.
Leaf apparently contends that this is bullshit and that a Beckett authenticator authenticated Ronaldinho's autos.
Plaintiffs contend that's bullshit.
So basically, plaintiffs here contend that Leaf lied about Ronaldinho's (and unnamed others') autos as being authenticated when plaintiffs allege they are counterfeit.
Holy shit on those allegations, right?
Alleging Ronaldinho's are counterfeit is one thing, but alleging that other unnamed athletes' autos are also counterfeit WITHOUT NAMING NAMES OR EVIDENCE is...wow.
Better hope there's support for that.
And that's the gist of the lawsuit!
So what'll happen next?
Well, Leaf will move to consolidate its action with this one by transferring this action to Texas. That'll take some time (and Leaf will win because Leaf's action was the First Filed...which matters).
This will go on for months...and once the case is finally in Texas, we'll start seeing the substance of what's actually going on...so we'll need to wait a bit to see what's happening here.
Although, Brian Gray isn't shy, so I imagine we'll hear from him likely sooner than later.
Also attached to the complaint was the cease and desist sent by Ronaldinho's lawyers. If you'd like to read that, here ya go!
As for the allegations of counterfeit autos, there are quite a few instances of these autos be authenticated by different graders out there.
My initial thoughts: This is a crazy he said/she said here.
Either Ronaldinho did NOT sign autos--meaning Leaf lied and or/is wrong and graders such as PSA and SGC were wrong--or he is wrong and Leaf, PSA and SGC are right.
CRAZY.
Also, there are a few typos within this filing, including specifically referring to LEONARDO Messi...2022 World Cup champion.
Does this qualify as: tell me your lawyers don't follow sports or trading cards without telling me your lawyers don't follow sports or trading cards?
There's also no better subconscious way of throwing shade than NOT capitalizing the name of the defendant.
Now to the most important issue...WHAT CARD IS PAUL GOING TO BUY TO ADD TO HIS COLLECTION OF CARDS INVOLVED IN LAWSUITS?
Well, I already bought a Leaf Ronaldinho auto when Leaf filed its suit in Dec...so, I don't need another...but I'm now "invested" in the outcome of this suit!
And can someone help me out with this? Ronaldinho allegedly only signed "jerseys and numbers."
Ummm...am I dense? WTF is signing "numbers"?
Signing jerseys ON THE NUMBERS, I get. Buy just signing "numbers"?
HELP
And as a quick update...this picture looks pretty devastating for the lawsuit.
Leaf already owns the record of the fastest lawsuit from filing to dismissal (the CeeDee Lamb case - less than a week from Leaf filing suit, to dismissal of suit AND sending out the autos to its customers).
With evidence like this, can this case beat that?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's the case everyone's been talking about today: the legal battle over the Wembanyama jersey that Wemby gave to an adorable kid...which then ended up at Goldin Auctions...and sold for $73K...which now the father is trying blow up.
Let's look at the court filings!
Well, the case is captioned Frankie Desideri, Sr. (individually and on behalf of his son) v. Goldin Auctions...and yes...it's handwritten...which means the plaintiff here is proceeding without an attorney...which rarely (if ever) works out.
So the plaintiff here asks the court to "stop sale of a game worn jersey that was given to my 5 year old son" in which there were allegedly "multiple attempts" to withdraw the jersey from auction.
In Vargas v. Panini--which no one remembers is about alleged employment discrimination BUT everyone now knows as the case where Vargas's attorneys were sanctioned for allegedly filing an AI prepared brief--two of the sanctioned attorneys filed a "motion for reconsideration."
Now, before I get into the meat of this filing, motions for reconsideration are annoying and mostly always fail.
Was in court once when a judge took up such a motion and scolded the filers, asking, "Is this a motion to overrule myself?"
Judges HATE motions for reconsideration because the motion itself stands for the notion that the judge fucked up. Really. It may as well be called a JUDGE-YOU-REALLY-SCREWED-THIS-ONE-UP MOTION.
For the new lawsuit, it's CGC taking on Ulises Zanello and Bree Riva who allegedly engaged in what they advertised as CGC-certified comic books in CGC holders but in reality were “swapp[ed]” for inferior, lower-value comics.
It's CGC v. Brandon and Ayana Terrazas, and let's do a live read of it!
BUT, you hafta cut me a little slack. We have a sick/coughing household that kept me up all night...so kinda sleepwalking a bit here.
Still, with that, let's go!
The case starts out with a bang as it's a lawsuit "brought against two employees who abused their roles and privileges at CGC."
And how'd they abuse their roles? Well...[cont]...
...they allegedly "convert[ed] customers’ property, [sold] collectible materials in violation of CGC policies, and print[ed] CGC labels...in order to improperly label lower-grade collectible products as higher-grade collectible products."
And what happens when those two intersect? Well, you get a letter written to the judge from the client that he admits will "blindside" his attorney...has a section entitled "Rant"...and tells the judge "Shame on you."
I've filed dozens of patent infringement cases, but because patent cases are so difficult nowadays (and patents are worth so little), it's been close to 10 years since I filed any.
They're generally not viable cases any more.
The client here alleges he spent $9M on this patent fight.
OH SHIT THAT'S RIGHT, Panini sued Fanatics for antitrust!
Now this is going to be fun one.
Who wants to do a live read of this bad boy?
Before we get into it, YES, I've done antitrust cases...from the defense and plaintiffs' side actually...and the biggest take home is: antitrust cases are EXPENSIVE.
The amount it costs to defend these (because of the voluminous discovery to be produced plus experts) is A LOT.
The easiest way to look at an antitrust case is, to win the plaintiff needs to show (basically) the defendant 1) has market power and 2) did something "bad."
Just having market power by itself (most times) isn't sufficient to lose an antitrust case.