-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
EA v EDGE GAMES, the Aftermath. Thread of the Decline and Fall of Tim Langdell
- Thread starter phisheep
- Start date
- Status
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
While the District Court is considering what to do about Langdell, EA and Future have filed a further motion before the Board.
In this one, they
- oppose Langdell's motion to suspend proceedings pending the District Court's decision, and urge cancellation of the trademarks
- point out that Langdell did not file in the district Court within the timetable that the Board set, and has in any case done so invalidly, through not being an attorney
- make reference to Langdell's "barrage" of inopportune motions (hint hint, vexatious)
So far as I can see, this slightly muddies the waters (which weren't all that clear in the first place) in conflating the outcome of the TTAB proceedings with the issue of whether the trademarks should be cancelled. The two are by now entirely unrelated, and no decision of the Board affects the duty of the Commissioner to cancel the marks pursuant to the District Court's judgment.
I think the reason they have done it this way is twofold:
1) it is polite to the court to continue to recognise its proceedings. It is noticeable that EA's recent motion to the District Court was also way more polite about the USPTO than it could have been. Politeness and respect for the court are assets worth cultivating when you have proceedings under way - something that Langdell appears to have not noticed.
2) even though the Board may not be the right route to pressing for cancellation, it is the only one currently available.
EDIT: Updated post #2 to bring us up to date
EDIT AGAIN:
This isn't quite the approach I suggested back in post #486
My concern is that EA-and-Future's motion gives Langdell more to bite back at - to submit yet another (presumably rotten) motion in an attempt to delay things yet again. Not that I suggest he should - far from it. And I don't think I am causing any trouble by saying so either, as it is the sort of thing he is likely to do whatever I come up with.
In this one, they
- oppose Langdell's motion to suspend proceedings pending the District Court's decision, and urge cancellation of the trademarks
- point out that Langdell did not file in the district Court within the timetable that the Board set, and has in any case done so invalidly, through not being an attorney
- make reference to Langdell's "barrage" of inopportune motions (hint hint, vexatious)
So far as I can see, this slightly muddies the waters (which weren't all that clear in the first place) in conflating the outcome of the TTAB proceedings with the issue of whether the trademarks should be cancelled. The two are by now entirely unrelated, and no decision of the Board affects the duty of the Commissioner to cancel the marks pursuant to the District Court's judgment.
I think the reason they have done it this way is twofold:
1) it is polite to the court to continue to recognise its proceedings. It is noticeable that EA's recent motion to the District Court was also way more polite about the USPTO than it could have been. Politeness and respect for the court are assets worth cultivating when you have proceedings under way - something that Langdell appears to have not noticed.
2) even though the Board may not be the right route to pressing for cancellation, it is the only one currently available.
EDIT: Updated post #2 to bring us up to date
EDIT AGAIN:
This isn't quite the approach I suggested back in post #486
My concern is that EA-and-Future's motion gives Langdell more to bite back at - to submit yet another (presumably rotten) motion in an attempt to delay things yet again. Not that I suggest he should - far from it. And I don't think I am causing any trouble by saying so either, as it is the sort of thing he is likely to do whatever I come up with.
It feels like both sides are simply filing responses to each other ad nauseam and no one from the courts is putting their foot down. Ugh
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
To be quite fair, the District Court (in the person of Judge Alsup) put his or its foot down very firmly some time ago - and shortly afterwards the internet was awash with "Langdell dead" comments. And the whole thing was over, or at least "over" in about six months flat.
But as we've seen, it isn't quite that simple everywhere.
To also be fair to the USPTO Board, they are very severely constrained by not being able to find people in contempt - which otherwise I'm sure they would have done long ago.
But there is a big old tactical difficulty in this sort of case - and it is partly judicial and partly about a lawyers' responsibility and legal ethics and legal money, and court procedure.
The judicial bit is that - in common law countries at least - a judge is only usually supposed to take account of arguments presented to him/her. All the stuff we hear about judicial creativity is usually recycled attorney creativity presented persuasively and politely (there are notable exceptions like Lord Denning). So there's a risk that if you do not oppose a motion against you, that you might be found against, even if the sane tactical option is to say nothing.
The lawyers responsibility to his client is to do the best he can for the client's interests within the law, but he also has responsibilities to the court to do things like follow procedures and not mess up and so on. And sometimes when saying less or nothing would be the best option, saying more or something is what satisfies the client. There have been several occasions in this case where if one party had just kept quiet the case could have been over. And not just Langdell. And some lawyers I'm sure would advise to file a several-hundred dollar motion rather than advise to do nothing at all. That's the ethics and money bit.
As to court procedure: it comes in for a bit of stick, but it is mostly there to bring a soon-ish end to proceedings between represented parties. It is not geared to loonies like Langdell, who has a wilful "misunderstanding" of the nature of court proceedings. One advantage of this case is that it may bring about some procedural changes in the USPTO (at least I hope so).
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Way back when, in October last year, Langdell voluntarily surrendered two US trademarks (EDGEGAMERS and EDGE OF EXTINCTION), and expressly abandoned two trademark applications (EDGE for software and EDGE for computers etc). I surmised then, and it is now confirmed that this was part of the settlement agreement with EA from the district court case.
I've just discovered that on 27th February this year, Langdell sought to have these surrenders and abandonments reversed. Not in the normal way though the courts, but by directly petitioning the Commissioner of Trademarks.
This was sneaky and underhand and, as we have come to expect, doomed to failure.
Langdell's petition accused EA and Future of gross misrepresentation, coercion, commercial sabotage - and all of this in a forum where EA and Future had no right to notice of the petition nor any right to be heard.
On 17th April the Commissioner denied the petition, on the simple grounds that it was filed too late. But also pointed out that the petition would have failed anyway, as the Commissioner has no power to reverse surrenders and abandonments other than by order of the court.
Good.
Sorry I missed that while it was happening.
I've just discovered that on 27th February this year, Langdell sought to have these surrenders and abandonments reversed. Not in the normal way though the courts, but by directly petitioning the Commissioner of Trademarks.
This was sneaky and underhand and, as we have come to expect, doomed to failure.
Langdell's petition accused EA and Future of gross misrepresentation, coercion, commercial sabotage - and all of this in a forum where EA and Future had no right to notice of the petition nor any right to be heard.
On 17th April the Commissioner denied the petition, on the simple grounds that it was filed too late. But also pointed out that the petition would have failed anyway, as the Commissioner has no power to reverse surrenders and abandonments other than by order of the court.
Good.
Sorry I missed that while it was happening.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Here we go again. Langdell has filed yet another motion with the Board, this time objecting to EA and Future's objection to Langdell's motion to have the proceedings suspended pending the outcome of his motion before the District Court to have its own judgment declared void, which ain't gonna happen.
Still with me? Pay attention at the back there.
Before we get into the detail of this, I should point out that this latest motion appears to be untimely, as in way too late to be considered. It should have been filed within 20 days after the thing it is objecting to, and it wasn't.
Most of what Langdell says here is directed at appendix A of the EA/Future motion, which is a copy of their motion to the District Court. Langdell tries to claim that this is not a conformed copy of the motion, so may just be a draft and never actually filed. This is bullshit, as the motion shows up on the District Court docket. Not only that, but the copy shown in the motion before the Board has, at the top of each page, not only a filing date but a docket number, which it can only have got after being filed with the court.
Langdell then complains that he never received the motion. This sounds an awfully familiar line of argument. And it is a bit odd that he is able to respond in such detail to a motion he did not receive.
He also complains, rather oddly, that the copy of the District Court motion exhibited with the Board motion does not contain a certificate of service and tries to imply this shows it was never filed. That is just bizarre - the original motion to the District Court does have a certificate of service (docket number 82 part 2), as does the Board motion - and those are the only certificates of service required.
There follows a small rant about how unfair the deadline the Board set him was, but we have done that one to death twice already so I won't do it again.
Now we come to the only substantial claim - that:
That is just false. If the District Court's final judgment is void (it isn't), the effect would not be to decide the Board proceedings in Edge's favour, but to resuscitate EA's amended pleading alleging fraud and abandonment, which Langdell would then have to answer. So it would do the exact opposite of determining the proceedings, it would open them right up again. That does not give grounds for suspending the proceedings. Not at all. The District Court's ruling could only dispose of the Board's proceedings if the judgment is confirmed, and then only in favour of EA.
After that, Langdell wheedles a bit about the attempt to strike his motion for lack of attorney representation, claiming that he will have an attorney for any actual hearing and will arrange it so his motion is either (a) accepted by the court as being filed by an attorney or (b) that it gets refiled by an attorney. Good luck, Tim, with finding a lawyer who is willing to do either of those - you will have to find one who does not mind being sanctioned by the court.
Besides, this wheedling is made in the wrong place, it needs to be done - if at all - before the District Court, not the Board (because the rule involved is a local rule of the 9th District, and the Board has no jurisdiction over it).
I haven't seen any recent filing from Langdell about this in the District Court, but if he's made one it should show up in the docket tomorrow - I'll check then.
We're now a couple of months shy of THREE YEARS since EA filed to have these trademarks cancelled. This is a nonsense.
Still with me? Pay attention at the back there.
Before we get into the detail of this, I should point out that this latest motion appears to be untimely, as in way too late to be considered. It should have been filed within 20 days after the thing it is objecting to, and it wasn't.
Most of what Langdell says here is directed at appendix A of the EA/Future motion, which is a copy of their motion to the District Court. Langdell tries to claim that this is not a conformed copy of the motion, so may just be a draft and never actually filed. This is bullshit, as the motion shows up on the District Court docket. Not only that, but the copy shown in the motion before the Board has, at the top of each page, not only a filing date but a docket number, which it can only have got after being filed with the court.
Langdell then complains that he never received the motion. This sounds an awfully familiar line of argument. And it is a bit odd that he is able to respond in such detail to a motion he did not receive.
He also complains, rather oddly, that the copy of the District Court motion exhibited with the Board motion does not contain a certificate of service and tries to imply this shows it was never filed. That is just bizarre - the original motion to the District Court does have a certificate of service (docket number 82 part 2), as does the Board motion - and those are the only certificates of service required.
There follows a small rant about how unfair the deadline the Board set him was, but we have done that one to death twice already so I won't do it again.
Now we come to the only substantial claim - that:
.Langdell page 3 said:
That is just false. If the District Court's final judgment is void (it isn't), the effect would not be to decide the Board proceedings in Edge's favour, but to resuscitate EA's amended pleading alleging fraud and abandonment, which Langdell would then have to answer. So it would do the exact opposite of determining the proceedings, it would open them right up again. That does not give grounds for suspending the proceedings. Not at all. The District Court's ruling could only dispose of the Board's proceedings if the judgment is confirmed, and then only in favour of EA.
After that, Langdell wheedles a bit about the attempt to strike his motion for lack of attorney representation, claiming that he will have an attorney for any actual hearing and will arrange it so his motion is either (a) accepted by the court as being filed by an attorney or (b) that it gets refiled by an attorney. Good luck, Tim, with finding a lawyer who is willing to do either of those - you will have to find one who does not mind being sanctioned by the court.
Besides, this wheedling is made in the wrong place, it needs to be done - if at all - before the District Court, not the Board (because the rule involved is a local rule of the 9th District, and the Board has no jurisdiction over it).
I haven't seen any recent filing from Langdell about this in the District Court, but if he's made one it should show up in the docket tomorrow - I'll check then.
We're now a couple of months shy of THREE YEARS since EA filed to have these trademarks cancelled. This is a nonsense.
kruis
Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
We're entering Dickensian territory with this farce. I'm reminded of Bleak House with with court cases that drag on for decades with no end in sight ...
Perhaps the case will continue for every year Langdell continued to take/get royalties for the Edge IP.
BobTheFork
Member
I remember the stories proclaiming he and his act 'dead'. He will live on like a cockroach for years hoping he can just outlast how far EA is willing to go.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Two days ago, on 23rd July, the District Court struck out Langdell's improbable attempt to have its judgment overturned.
Here's the full ruling
There is now no bar - not that there ever was one - to the USPTO cancelling Langdell's trade marks.
But we've been here before. Wonder what is going to happen next?
EDIT: OP and post #2 updated to reflect this
Here's the full ruling
There is now no bar - not that there ever was one - to the USPTO cancelling Langdell's trade marks.
But we've been here before. Wonder what is going to happen next?
EDIT: OP and post #2 updated to reflect this
Does he get some kind of response/appeal period for this too?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Too late. He should have responded to EA's motion to strike (which he did, but in the wrong court).
He doesn't have the standing to file a response anyway, as the ruling makes clear, and he'll struggle mightily to find a lawyer willing to take it on as is is near-as-dammit contempt of court to even try, at least on the grounds that Langdell has proposed.
So then, he could try, just to slow the inevitable down a bit longer?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Oh, for sure he could try that. It would be a stupid dumbass move, so it is clearly not beyond him! But it would invite all manner of repercussions and sanctions from the court.
I expect an overly-long response within the week.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
My pleasure - well, most of the time.
Of course, one thing that EA and Future could do is petition the Commissioner of Trademarks directly to comply with the court order, so bypassing the TTAB entirely and giving Langdell no right of response and avoiding the seemingly endless delays. Langdell could hardly complain about that, since he tried the same trick earlier this year (though, being him, he failed dismally).
But I think they are a bit too polite to do that.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I doubt it. Most civil cases really do not make for good spectator sport - it is largely Langdell's spectactular self-inflicted pratfalls in attempting to avoid fraud charges that have made this one worth the effort and I don't expect anywhere near the same entertainment value in the Uniloc case. It'll be a load of stand-off posturing followed by a proper hearing probably, because since nobody's actually being accused of anything criminal there's no reason to run away from the hearing.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Dear Board,
Tim's motion has been struck out. Look, here's a copy of the ruling signed by Judge Alsup.
Please deny all of Langdell's outstanding motions and cancel the trademarks. Promptly.
Lots of love,
EA and Future Publishing
Tim's motion has been struck out. Look, here's a copy of the ruling signed by Judge Alsup.
Please deny all of Langdell's outstanding motions and cancel the trademarks. Promptly.
Lots of love,
EA and Future Publishing
Magna_Mixalis
Member
GAH! Their .pdf is borked and all of the pages are blank...
@phisheep: Is Timmy finally finished, or can he keep wreaking havoc in the courts? It seems like the only way he's going to avoid being penalized to death is if either EA and Co. just walk away in exhaustion and disgust or if he just keeps throwing out crap motions until he dies.
Anyway, thanks again as always for keeping us all up to date.
@phisheep: Is Timmy finally finished, or can he keep wreaking havoc in the courts? It seems like the only way he's going to avoid being penalized to death is if either EA and Co. just walk away in exhaustion and disgust or if he just keeps throwing out crap motions until he dies.
Anyway, thanks again as always for keeping us all up to date.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Try going this way instead?
Hard to see what he can do from here. He has nothing to respond to in the Board case, no standing in the District Court, vanishingly small chance of finding a compliant lawyer and no even fanciful grounds for appeal.
As I mentioned before, fleeing to Venezuela seems his best tactical option right now.
Pleasure.
Magna_Mixalis
Member
@phisheep: Thanks for the alt link; it seems that only a couple of th .pdfs don't work. And by the way; dear god that is a lot of cruft to sift through. Hopefully I'll be able to stay sane while crawling through it all tonight...though I might only understand 1/2 of it at most...
You have truly done god's work throughout this whole sordid affair.
You have truly done god's work throughout this whole sordid affair.
kruis
Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
I'm curious if Future Publishing will sue Langdell when his trademarks are stricken from the boks. They paiid Langdell tens of thousands of dollars for the use of the name "Edge" for their magazine. Langdell's claim to taht name was bogus, so I assume FP is going to want that money back ASAP. Can they?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
They already have.
Mark Millar of Future made a declaration in support of EA's recent motion to strike Langdell's motion to dismiss, which read at paragraph 3:
Mark Millar said:
The key, and damning judgment in this case was the Chancery judgment that I've mentioned before (and is referenced in the OP). The rest seems to have been settled. I'm pretty sure the settlement included unopposed cancellation of UK trademarks (since the marks have gone and no decision is recorded, so presumably no hearing was necessary) and I expect a sum of money would have changed hands too.
It certainly should have done, since the amount was in the hundreds of thousands, not the tens.
Magna_Mixalis
Member
@phisheep: Definitely not in one night; I seriously doubt one month would be sufficient...
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Well, things are hotting up nicely here, makes a pleasant change from all that interminable waiting around.
Langdell fired off yet another motion to the Board today, seeking yet more delay and time to get himself lawyered up. The whole thing is an extended version of his usual “dog ate my homework” excuse and littered with devious scallwaggery and (at most) half-truths. I am in a nitpicky mood – so I am going to nitpick my way through the whole lot. It’s only four paragraphs.
Para 1 – Motion to strike? What motion to strike?
You’d gather from this that Tim didn’t know about the motion to strike, eh?
Far from it. EA and Future exhibited a copy of the motion to strike as exhibit A to their Board motion of 13th June. And we know Langdell saw that, because he responded to it and complained about it in his response of 6th July.
If he didn’t take the hint that EA and Future might just have filed the motion they said (under penalty of perjury, I might add) that they filed then it is entirely his own damn fault.
Dog ate my homework again. Time those dogs got disciplined. Besides, Langdell is too quick off the mark here – chances are the court order is still in the post, so really it is too early to moan.
Para 2 – It was not me, guv, it was the clerk that messed me around
Reading this, you might imagine that the poor unsupported underdog litigant at the mercy of the full might of EA and Future has been woefully misled by the court clerk.
Let’s just remind ourselves for starters that Langdell brought his motion in a case that he himself started against EA. Underdog litigant my foot.
Let’s remind ourselves also that it was Langdell himself who requested a hearing on the motion on August 16th – to be ready for that he should have been lawyered up by now already.
And besides, it is the litigant’s job to get things procedurally right. Not the clerk’s.
EA and Future served Langdell (according to the proof of service) by email to corp@edgegames.com.
Usually Langdell uses uspto@edgegames.com as his service address, so perhaps something did go wrong here?
Not a bit of it. The contact details on EA’s/Future’s motion to strike match precisely those given by Langdell himself in the motion that they were seeking to strike.
Wrong contact details? Piffle.
I’ve no idea where August 9th came from either. It might be a typo. Doesn’t matter though – as you don’t need a hearing for a procedural breach. And as we’ve seen, Langdell knew full well that this motion was happening.
Para 3 – That was plain unfair – I need more time
I could do it in two days. Not that I would of course, and neither would any lawyer who does not want to be sanctioned by the court. Dream on Tim.
So, the woefully misled underdog litigant has belatedly realised he needs to lawyer up and seeks time to do so. Let’s remind ourselves here that Langdell has had more than nine months already to challenge the District Court judgment. That’s more than enough. Way more than enough.
Para 4 – keep me in suspense
Dream on …
Might seem picky to mention it, but neither of these scenarios impact the outcome of the Board proceedings which, we should remind ourselves, are about cancelling trademarks because of fraud and abandonment.
It ain’t gonna happen. Best Langdell can hope for here is that the Board stays dormant a while longer.
What we now have is a straight race. Can Langdell file in the District Court through an attorney before the Board denies his motion and cancels the trademarks?
Run, Timmy, Run!
Langdell fired off yet another motion to the Board today, seeking yet more delay and time to get himself lawyered up. The whole thing is an extended version of his usual “dog ate my homework” excuse and littered with devious scallwaggery and (at most) half-truths. I am in a nitpicky mood – so I am going to nitpick my way through the whole lot. It’s only four paragraphs.
Para 1 – Motion to strike? What motion to strike?
Co-Registrant and Co-Defendant Edge Games Inc (“Edge”has just noticed by inspecting the filings in this matter on the PTO website that apparently Plaintiffs in this matter have obtained an Order striking Edge’s motion to vacate judgment without Edge being served with any copy of any document filed by Plaintiffs in the District Court and without the District Court giving Edge any notice of hearing such a motion to strike its motion, or giving Edge any opportunity to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion to strike its motion.
You’d gather from this that Tim didn’t know about the motion to strike, eh?
Far from it. EA and Future exhibited a copy of the motion to strike as exhibit A to their Board motion of 13th June. And we know Langdell saw that, because he responded to it and complained about it in his response of 6th July.
If he didn’t take the hint that EA and Future might just have filed the motion they said (under penalty of perjury, I might add) that they filed then it is entirely his own damn fault.
Dog ate my homework again. Time those dogs got disciplined. Besides, Langdell is too quick off the mark here – chances are the court order is still in the post, so really it is too early to moan.
Para 2 – It was not me, guv, it was the clerk that messed me around
Reading this, you might imagine that the poor unsupported underdog litigant at the mercy of the full might of EA and Future has been woefully misled by the court clerk.
Let’s just remind ourselves for starters that Langdell brought his motion in a case that he himself started against EA. Underdog litigant my foot.
Let’s remind ourselves also that it was Langdell himself who requested a hearing on the motion on August 16th – to be ready for that he should have been lawyered up by now already.
And besides, it is the litigant’s job to get things procedurally right. Not the clerk’s.
EA and Future served Langdell (according to the proof of service) by email to corp@edgegames.com.
Usually Langdell uses uspto@edgegames.com as his service address, so perhaps something did go wrong here?
Not a bit of it. The contact details on EA’s/Future’s motion to strike match precisely those given by Langdell himself in the motion that they were seeking to strike.
Wrong contact details? Piffle.
I’ve no idea where August 9th came from either. It might be a typo. Doesn’t matter though – as you don’t need a hearing for a procedural breach. And as we’ve seen, Langdell knew full well that this motion was happening.
Para 3 – That was plain unfair – I need more time
I could do it in two days. Not that I would of course, and neither would any lawyer who does not want to be sanctioned by the court. Dream on Tim.
So, the woefully misled underdog litigant has belatedly realised he needs to lawyer up and seeks time to do so. Let’s remind ourselves here that Langdell has had more than nine months already to challenge the District Court judgment. That’s more than enough. Way more than enough.
Para 4 – keep me in suspense
Dream on …
Might seem picky to mention it, but neither of these scenarios impact the outcome of the Board proceedings which, we should remind ourselves, are about cancelling trademarks because of fraud and abandonment.
It ain’t gonna happen. Best Langdell can hope for here is that the Board stays dormant a while longer.
What we now have is a straight race. Can Langdell file in the District Court through an attorney before the Board denies his motion and cancels the trademarks?
Run, Timmy, Run!
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
Phisheep, have you considered writing a book out of this? Maybe a half-narrative half-lawyering book? Perhaps of both entertaining and educative quality for lawyers?
Heck, you can even go half-journalist and interview lawyers and judges involved, maybe even a show down with langdell himself!
Oh, who am I kidding, probably been brought up in the thread and shot down for one reason or another.
Heck, you can even go half-journalist and interview lawyers and judges involved, maybe even a show down with langdell himself!
Oh, who am I kidding, probably been brought up in the thread and shot down for one reason or another.
CosmicQueso
Member
Where can I preorder?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Hang on a bit. Don't even know how it ends yet.
Slightly Live
Dirty tag dodger
I would pay real moniez to read an interview between Phisheep and Timmy.
Seriously. Skip kickstarter, I'll mail a check or post cash or anything.
Seriously. Skip kickstarter, I'll mail a check or post cash or anything.
Always so pleased to see the notification for this thread getting updated pop up in my inbox. You've made this long and drawn out process a much more interesting affair, seeing as we can follow what's going on and see a little of the hole that Langdell's digging for himself. Great work!
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Meanwhile in the UK ...
Langdell's company Edge Europe Limited (previously known as BAIAS Limited, company number 06581756 in England and Wales) has a status of "Active - Proposal to Strike Off".
Now, I don't know where that proposal has come from and I don't have ready access to any more detail.
But I'll keep an eye on it.
This company is the one that holds the UK trademark for KILLER EDGE RACING
Langdell's company Edge Europe Limited (previously known as BAIAS Limited, company number 06581756 in England and Wales) has a status of "Active - Proposal to Strike Off".
Now, I don't know where that proposal has come from and I don't have ready access to any more detail.
But I'll keep an eye on it.
This company is the one that holds the UK trademark for KILLER EDGE RACING
Does this mean the company will be listed as inactive by ...whoever lists companies in the UK?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Companies House you mean? Well, it might not mean much at all depending on what it is for. Could be just that Langdell is late delivering his returns (which he is by a couple of months), in which case he might just bang some returns in, make excuses (he has lots of practice) and revert the status. Could be something more than that though. Don't know yet.
EDIT 31 July: Looks like it was just the late returns stuff. The returns are now in and status back to "Active". So no excitement here.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Dear Board,
Timmy is lying when he says he didn't get our previous motion. He sure as hell knew about it.
Plus, although he claimed to be urgently re-filing his motion through an attorney, he hasn't actually done anything about it, and that was three weeks ago. Sounds like just another delaying tactic to us.
How's about you just cancel those trademarks already?
Lots of love,
EA and Future Publishing
EDIT:
One curious thing about this is, what with all of Langdell's recent huffing and puffing about the time it will take to find and brief a lawyer, he seems to have forgotten that he already has one. The Lanier Law Firm is still Langdell's counsel of record for the District Court case.
Timmy is lying when he says he didn't get our previous motion. He sure as hell knew about it.
Plus, although he claimed to be urgently re-filing his motion through an attorney, he hasn't actually done anything about it, and that was three weeks ago. Sounds like just another delaying tactic to us.
How's about you just cancel those trademarks already?
Lots of love,
EA and Future Publishing
EDIT:
One curious thing about this is, what with all of Langdell's recent huffing and puffing about the time it will take to find and brief a lawyer, he seems to have forgotten that he already has one. The Lanier Law Firm is still Langdell's counsel of record for the District Court case.
Cosmo Clock 21
Banned
This is starting to get farcial... at what point should the USPTO just go "okay fuck you you've had like two years"?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
November 2010 by my reckoning. Indeed they did come very close to doing that, but is was the curveball of bringing Future into the proceedings that made it get messy all over again.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I'm not really sure, to be honest.
Really the USPTO behaved impeccably right up to the point that Langdell threw the Future Publishing thing into the equation. There's a big problem with civil litigation in general in that, since it is (quite explicitly) slow in order to encourage parties to settle it is also wide open to charlatans like Langdell.
In general courts have sanctions against people who abuse the process, but for some reason the USPTO does not (and I think this is something that needs to be looked at).
But so far as approving initial trademark applications goes, there's a difficult balance to be drawn between eliminating frauds and making things sensibly easy for the ordinary business person.
I'm inclined to think that the balance would be about right if (and only if) the USPTO TTAB had sufficient sanctions against contempt. Otherwise we might end up putting too great a burden on perfectly legitimate businesses.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Langdell's latest motion to the Board is, even more than Langdell's usual stuff, full of blatantly deceptive claims.
It is probably worth going through in detail, but I'm not going to do so just yet. Partly because I'm really busy and really tired, but also I don't at this critical stage want to give away any clues.
Two things worth pointing out now though:
1) Langdell almost certainly doesn't have a lawyer yet. If he did, then the lawyer would have strongly advised against putting this longwinded, deceptive, bullshitting, improper and ultimately fruitless motion in at all.
2) Langdell's quite extraordinary claim that since there is no time limit for entering a rule 60 motion (to have a judgment overturned where it is void), he should therefore be able to suspend related proceedings indefinitely. That's just plain nonsense. If true, then no court order anywhere ever could be upheld and justice would grind to a halt. Now I know that sometimes - like in this case - it seems that way already, but an unlimited stay of execution on any court order takes us right into the Twilight Zone.
It is probably worth going through in detail, but I'm not going to do so just yet. Partly because I'm really busy and really tired, but also I don't at this critical stage want to give away any clues.
Two things worth pointing out now though:
1) Langdell almost certainly doesn't have a lawyer yet. If he did, then the lawyer would have strongly advised against putting this longwinded, deceptive, bullshitting, improper and ultimately fruitless motion in at all.
2) Langdell's quite extraordinary claim that since there is no time limit for entering a rule 60 motion (to have a judgment overturned where it is void), he should therefore be able to suspend related proceedings indefinitely. That's just plain nonsense. If true, then no court order anywhere ever could be upheld and justice would grind to a halt. Now I know that sometimes - like in this case - it seems that way already, but an unlimited stay of execution on any court order takes us right into the Twilight Zone.
This latest gambit is the definition of a hail mary. A disassociation from reality of this magnitude would be frightening if it wasn't so damn amusing.
I really appreciate your recaps, phisheep. Thanks.
- Status