Jive Turkey
Unconfirmed Member
I hate this thread. Every time it gets bumped I spend the next couple of hours reading.
phisheep said:As I've said a couple of times (but hey, I'm a helluva patient guy) he won't get fines/jail/gaol from this court. Wrong sort of court.
Jive Turkey said:I hate this thread. Every time it gets bumped I spend the next couple of hours reading.
28. In Binns paragraph 13, he deliberately seeks to mislead the District Court into
believing that the specimen that Edge filed in 2004 to support the Combined Declaration of Use and Incontestability was not genuine clearly wanting the Judge to believe he was saying the specimen was a fake. Binns was deliberately stating that the specimen was not of their own UK magazine called Edge and putting his statement in such a way as to mislead the Judge into thinking that there would have been only one such genuine item in 2004, and that would have solely been the Future UK magazine. What Binns omits to say, deliberately so as to mislead the Judge, is that Future did not have the right to print US versions of its Edge magazine at that particular time in August 2004 (they gained that right a few months later in October 2004). He deliberately fails to mention that in August 2004 Edge Games had the sole right to publish such printed matter as is depicted in the specimen in question, and that the specimen was an entirely genuine copy of Edges printed matter goods and not the fake that Binns (and Electronic Arts) clearly wanted the Judge to falsely believe.
Magna_Mixalis said:I'm now torn between wanting him to finally be put out of his misery and wanting to buy some more popcorn and wait to see what insane, delusionary, and borderline illegal delay tactics he can come up with to prolong the madness.
Give an inch and Langdell will take a foot. The more leeway you give Langdell the harder he struggles to break free.Magna_Mixalis said:It sounds like he knows he's screwed and is now using the political/special interest fearmongering tactic of screaming lies repeatedly until people accept his view of events simply to shut him up.
I'm now torn between wanting him to finally be put out of his misery and wanting to buy some more popcorn and wait to see what insane, delusionary, and borderline illegal delay tactics he can come up with to prolong the madness.
Oh, and phisheep, once again major kudos for subjecting yourself to all of this for our edification and entertainment.
Langdell said:We inadvertently filed the wrong version of the files for our filings on September 28. We are thus submitting the corrected papers with our apologies for the error.
Langdell said:As co-owners of several of the trademark registrations in question, Future was an indispensable party and necessary party to the District Court action: since Future was not a party to that suit, no valid final judgment could lawfully be made. Accordingly, the final judgment issued by the District Court was invalid and void on its face (not merely voidable).
As co-owners of several of the trademark registrations in question, Future was an indispensable party and necessary party to the District Court action: since Future was not a party to that suit, no valid final judgment could lawfully be made. Accordingly, the final judgment issued by the District Court was invalid and void on its face (not merely voidable).
RandomVince said:So is Langdell reading this thread and phisheep's analysis I wonder? Because if for example I was doing something related to my work, and people were critiquing me, it would be hard not to make changes should obvious flaws be made known.
?phisheep said:they are fully entitled to change their minds about him - as did the IGDA, National University and probably a few more to come.
Maybe it's when National University found out he's still saying he's associated with them?Erigu said:?
Another anecdote I missed, there?
kinoki said:Just putting the mandatory "phisheep i <3 u" here so that you know you've got readers. (Write the book and I'll buy it.)
Magna_Mixalis said:If the USPTO was ordered by the courts to cancel any trademarks, etc; why haven't they? I wasn't aware they had the authority to tell the courts to go to hell. It seems that a lot of this mess could have been taken care of simply by the USPTO doing what they were told.
Also, how much longer do you think this farce will continue? It sounds like Timothy is grasping at straws now. Is he doing all of this in hopes of delaying the inevitable criminal charges?
Magna_Mixalis said:Thanks for the update. I think he knows he's screwed, and like you said, is trying to get Future to take some of the blame for his insanity.
Will that work, though? It seems like Future can make a credible claim that they were conned/blackmailed.
...And I second the suggestion that you write a book about all of this. Lord knows you've already put a phenomenal effort into keeping tabs on all of this and deserve a little compensation.
Doesn't First Class Post include this?someguyinahat said:phisheep, knowing that Langdell pulls the old "I never received it" trick, why don't Future and anyone else send him things via registered mail, forcing him to sign for them as a mark of receivership?
Magna_Mixalis said:I have a question. During all of this, has it been the same judge/judges who have been overseeing the proceedings? And if so, why would they continue to allow this? I will admit to my ignorance of court procedure, but it seems as if the judge would get sick of Langdell's repeated violation of court rules and hold him in contempt. I 'm pretty sure that if I tried half of this crap in a civil trial I'd be crushed like an ant almost immediately. Or am I completely off base?
(f) The Board will not hold any person in contempt, or award attorneys fees or other expenses to any party.
someguyinahat said:phisheep, knowing that Langdell pulls the old "I never received it" trick, why don't Future and anyone else send him things via registered mail, forcing him to sign for them as a mark of receivership?
Langdell para 26 said:Edge notes Future (which is most impacted by the Motion) did not oppose this Motion and thus presumably agrees with it.
Langdell para 10 said:Petitioners refer to having filed an Amended Petition to Cancel, however these proceedings were suspended immediately after that Amended Petition was filed. As far as Edge is aware, the Board has not yet ruled on whether it will permit the Amended Petition to be considered. It is thus at this point possible that the Amended Petition will be rejected.
TTAB ruling said:petitioners amended petition to cancel filed March 24, 2010, which is now the operative pleading in this proceeding
Langdell para 9 said:by becoming joint owners of this registration Future became equally liable with Edge in respect to all allegations of at least fraud pertaining the obtaining, maintenance and renewal of the mark even where such actions predated Future becoming a part-owner
Langdell para 1 said:]Just as it was the Boards decision which entities should be a party to these proceedings, it is the Boards decision which registrations are at issue
Langdell para 11 said:even if the Amended Petition is accepted into these proceedings, it does not successfully elect to not seek cancellation of the 604 Registration
Langdell para 12 said:In its Claims for Relief in its Amended Petition, Petitioners still allege with no reference at all to not including the 604 Child Registration
Langdell para 22 said:Contrary to what Petitioners allege in their Opposition, Edge does dispute the assignment to Future and does dispute Futures right to divide the original registration into parent and child in the manner that they did. If Edge had abandoned this registration prior to the partial assignment to Future which Edge denies then the assignment to Future would be invalid, and consequently any division would be invalid, too. Similarly, if Edge committed fraud in obtaining, maintaining or renewing the registration which Edge denies prior to the partial assignment to Future, then once again the assignment would be invalid, and any division would be invalid. Since all these allegations against Edge are part of Petitioners original and amended petition to cancel, it follows that the outcome of these instant proceedings will determine if there was a valid assignment to Future and whether a division should have occurred. It is precisely because the proceedings before the Board can impact any and all postregistration actions that usually no post-registration action is taken after Board proceedings have commenced even if the request to take such action occurred prior to commencement of proceedings.
37 CFR 2.67 said:Action by the Patent and Trademark Office may be suspended for a reasonable time for good and sufficient cause. The fact that a proceeding is pending before the Patent and Trademark Office ... will be considered prima facie good and sufficient cause. An applicants request for a suspension of action under this section filed within the 6-month response period (see § 2.62) may be considered responsive to the previous Office action. The first suspension is within the discretion of the Examiner of Trademarks and any subsequent suspension must be approved by the Director.
Dead Man said:Thanks again for taking the time to explain this for all us that don't have a legal background!
5 minutes. And no, I didn't take it all in yet, I got up to F when I posted. My brain needed a break.phisheep said:My goodness, you read that quickly! What, two minutes? If you followed all that you ought to go into law yourself, it's taken me hours to try and work it out.
BiggStankDogg said:phisheep doin' work! I love reading your breakdowns.
Had Tim abandoned the trademarks in the first place, would he presumably have been better off rather than risking his neck with all his bullshit? I understand him fighting to NOT look like he really is a douche, but at what point does he realize that this is hurting him bad?
And not being a lawyer, is there a way he can go "Fine - you win" and walk away bruised but alive to scheme another day?