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
Quick update in Panini's fight to try and get a TM registration for CERTIFIED!
As you will recall, I said this was a dumb trademark filing...and the Trademark Office (so far) thinks so too as it's been rejected, and Panini is now on appeal.
...in its appeal brief Panini argues that it should get a CERTIFIED reg. because #TheHobby uses "certified" to mean a certification process has been gone through...whereas Panini's CERTIFIED cards "do not undergo a certification process before they are purchased by the consumer."
Talk about an argument only a lawyer would love.
"YOU SEE ALL THOSE OTHER CERTIFIED AND CERTIFIATIONS OUT THERE IN #THEHOBBY? YEAH...THOSE MEAN THE CARDS ARE LIKE LEGIT...OUR CARDS DON'T GO THROUGH THAT. SO WE SAY 'CERTIFIED' BUT WE AIN'T LIKE CERTIFIABLY LEGIT."
The legal battle over the Lebron RPA card that began as a defamation case against Card Porn has expanded! A new lawsuit was filed by the Spiegels (the owners of the card), this time against Goldin Auctions and Ken Goldin.
But before we get into the new Spiegel v. Goldin lawsuit, if you'd like a reminder about the Card Porn suit, here ya go:
As you may recall, the original lawsuit was based on Card Porn's alleged disparagement of the Lebron RPA card. At that time, the card was up for auction at Goldin, BUT, due to Card Porn's comments, the auction was allegedly stopped.
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.
In #TheHobby trademark news, three of Topps' trademark applications were abandoned by the Trademark Office. The abandoned marks are TURN BACK THE CLOCK, PRO DEBUT and ROAD TO KICKOFF.
Why did these marks become abandoned? Well, because it appears Topps did not respond to the Trademark Office within the required time period.
So, was this on purpose by Topps? Or a mistake?
I'm leaning on the side of mistake because Topps released TURN BACK THE CLOCK and PRO DEBUT products in 2022...unless it plans on dropping these product lines.
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.