Paul Lesko Profile picture
Jan 5 27 tweets 10 min read
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? Image
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. Image
The lawsuit starts off recounting Ronaldinho's history in football (soccer for us United States-ers)... ImageImage
...and mentions that Drob is a plaintiff here too because that is who Ronaldinho has assigned his IP rights to. Image
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. ImageImageImage
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... ImageImageImageImage
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. Image
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. ImageImage
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. Image
Leaf apparently contends that this is bullshit and that a Beckett authenticator authenticated Ronaldinho's autos.

Plaintiffs contend that's bullshit. Image
So basically, plaintiffs here contend that Leaf lied about Ronaldinho's (and unnamed others') autos as being authenticated when plaintiffs allege they are counterfeit. Image
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! ImageImage
As for the allegations of counterfeit autos, there are quite a few instances of these autos be authenticated by different graders out there. ImageImage
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? Image
There's also no better subconscious way of throwing shade than NOT capitalizing the name of the defendant. Image
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! Image
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 Image
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
 

Keep Current with Paul Lesko

Paul Lesko Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Paul_Lesko

Jan 5
Silly personal announcement - during the COVID lockdown, I got to spend a lot more time with my family than practicing law normally allows. That time was great for our family, especially with our high-school-aged boys...who for some reason still like my wife and me. So...
...given it's getting close to the time when our boys are going to fly the coop, we've decided that I'm going to take some time away from practicing law to enjoy the family before everything changes.
I'll still be online tweeting on cases, but I'm really looking forward to some time off...and not checking my phone every five minutes for updates on cases.
Read 5 tweets
Jan 4
A fun new #TheHobby case to watch, especially for all y'all that vault your cards.

It's Dave & Adam's v. Warehouse Services and Wheatfield Business Park II, and is about water damage to a large number cases while stored at the defendants' warehouse.
The action is simply "Our shit was in your warehouse and because your warehouse's ceiling leaked, it ruined our shit, so one of y'all better pay for it."

(Slightly paraphrasing)

Looks like the total alleged damages are $54,600 due to damage to 42 cases of cards.
And if you want to see what the damage looked like...
Read 11 tweets
Oct 14, 2021
In #TheHobby trademark news, Topps filed two oppositions against Surujnarine Femy Singh's two TOPPSHOT trademark applications...applications that cover, basically, athletic wear. ImageImage
As you can imagine, Topps owns a couple trademark registrations on TOPPS like properties...quite a few for athletic wear as well. And Topps relies on all of them against the TOPPSHOT marks. ImageImageImageImage
Topps also shows that it uses its TOPPS marks on apparel...and I think I need both of these shirts. Image
Read 5 tweets
Oct 13, 2021
To do this correctly, I need to tell the whole story. SO...those who have already followed my tweets on Upper Deck v. Flores (or what will forever be known as "The case where someone filed a pic of their ass in federal court"), bear with me a second.

Or is it bare? Bare ass?
And don't say I didn't warn you.

THIS WILL HAUNT YOU.

So stop reading if you want to keep your sanity.

For the rest of the depraved, go right ahead. Keep reading.
OK, enough theatrics.

This case started innocently enough. It's a lawsuit Upper Deck brought against an alleged seller of a counterfeit UD card named Flores.

If you want a summary of what the case is about, here you go:

Read 13 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(