Diving into the new complaint, it starts off similar to the last complaint by going through Panini's IP including the RATED ROOKIE and PANINI logos...
...and then we get into BangBros dot Cards section.
First up: On May 5, Sonesta (a/k/a the actual BangBros...who Panini originally sued) filed a complaint to cancel BangBros dot Cards domain...and when it did that, the registrar ID'd Ryan Carter as the registrant.
So there we have our first bit of newness: how the defendant was ID'd.
Next up, the complaint runs through "Defendant's Wrongful Use of Panini's Trademarks" and this is really a re-hash of the last complaint, pointing out that Bang Bros dot Cards infringed the RATED ROOKIE and PANINI trademarks...among others.
Like with the former complaint, there are no images of the cards because Panini apparently apparently thinks judges' delicate sensibilities can't handle these cards.
And then the complaint goes right into the claims for federal trademark infringement, trademark dilution (federal, state and common law), unfair competition (federal, state and common law) and unjust enrichment.
Panini also seeks an injunction to shut down Bang Bros dot Cards as well as to "destroy any products or images that include the Panini Marks or any other marks that are confusingly identical or similar to the Panini Marks."
DESTROY THOSE CARDS
And that's about it for now!
The motion for temporary restraining order we saw in the Sonesta case has not been filed (yet)...but, I guess the big update is it Panini believes it has now sued the right person.
...and the allegedly right person is a California resident and an individual (obviously)...so instead of getting a big trademark battle against two companies, we get a company suing someone who potentially made these cards out of his basement.
Sigh.
As to who is Ryan J. Carter? We don't know yet...but there was a Ryan J. Carter from Victorville who has run into issues with the law previously.
Like I said, the complaint does not provide actual pics of the allegedly infringing cards, but there is a 20+ page exhibit with links to many many many BangBros dot Cards' cards.
First four pages are below
So now we get into the fun questions:
1) Who is Ryan Carter? 2) Will the actual Bang Bros get more involved than just a lawsuit to shut down the domain? 3) Are the autos on (some of) these cards real? 4) Did the defendant have agreements with the models on the cards?
Also...Sonesta/BangBros proceedings against the domain are ongoing...that'll be fun to watch too
Just thinking of all the IP potentially infringer
• • •
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.