In #TheHobby trademark news...um...I'm going to need some help here.
Topps filed notice that it MIGHT file an opposition against the below trademark.
Anyone have an idea as to which of Topps' marks it thinks this might be too close to?
If it helps, the mark is owned by Insight 2 Design and basically covers batteries, flashlights, backpacks, furniture, drinkware, hammocks, towels and clothes.
At this time, Topps does not have to identify the mark(s) it is concerned about; it only needs to do that once/if an opposition is filed. And if that happens, it'll be March 25, 2023.
So...good luck figuring this one out!
Extra credit: What is this trademark? WRONG ANSWERS ONLY
My answer: someone drunkenly crawling to bed at 3:30 AM.
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.