How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App
Now, before I get into the meat of this filing, motions for reconsideration are annoying and mostly always fail.

This has been a busy week for CGC who also sued two of its former employees last week (AND also sought a TRO/PI).https://x.com/Paul_Lesko/status/1753063606407549319?s=20
The case starts out with a bang as it's a lawsuit "brought against two employees who abused their roles and privileges at CGC."


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.
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.
Before we jump into it, here's a refresher on Panini's motion.https://twitter.com/Paul_Lesko/status/1658808706325266432?s=20
Anyway, all the defendants answered Panini's complaint (and just denied everything) but, more excitingly, there's a motion by Panini to quash the deposition of Mark Warsop, the CEO of Panini America.
But before we dive in, if you'd like a reminder on where we are, here ya go:https://twitter.com/Paul_Lesko/status/1650858563902791680?s=20

Should we do a live read of the new complaint?
https://twitter.com/Paul_Lesko/status/1483808035634135043?s=20...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."
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:https://twitter.com/Paul_Lesko/status/1613674118658019328?s=20
If it helps, the mark is owned by Insight 2 Design and basically covers batteries, flashlights, backpacks, furniture, drinkware, hammocks, towels and clothes.


Why did these marks become abandoned? Well, because it appears Topps did not respond to the Trademark Office within the required time period. 

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."

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. 

