Lawsuit: Adjourned AnomalousEntropy v. .CaldironJa1 [2025] DCR 103

EmmDubz

EmmDubz

Citizen
Joined
Jun 11, 2025
Messages
78

Case Filing



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION

AnomalousEntropy
Plaintiff

v.

.CaldironJa1 (Caldiron/Tukiron1)
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

This case revolves around both breach of contract & trademark infringement. The Defendant entered into a business relationship with the Plaintiff where they were expected to manage the company's in-game DB, explicitly acknowledging that the Plaintiff retained "100%" ownership. The Defendant is now refusing to release the DB to the Plaintiff. Furthermore, the Defendant has launched a company "Autonomi Entertainment". This company, and it's published advertisements are damaging the reputation of, and causing confusion to potential and existing customers of the Plaintiff.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. AnomalousEntropy (Plaintiff)
2. Caldiron (Defendant)

II. FACTS

1. On August the 25th, 2025, the Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an agreement wherein the Defendant would assist with the setup of the Plaintiff's company's ("Autonomi") DB.
2. During this agreement, the Defendant explicitly confirmed in writing regarding ownership: "100% yours [The Plaintiff's]."
3. Based on this agreement, the Plaintiff proceeded to build the business under the Autonomi name, relying on the Defendant's administrative support.
4. On multiple occasions (September 22nd and 29th), the Defendant agreed to transfer the DB to the Plaintiff, but failed to do so citing technical issues.
5. On October the 18th, 2025, the Defendant broke the agreement, stating they wouldn't transfer the DB because "Idk, I'm feeling like it and I'm entitled to it."
6. The Defendant has since publicly advertised their company "Autonomi Entertainment", using the Plaintiff's trading name, and claiming to be "The real one", sullying the Plaintiff's commercial reputation, and causing confusion for clients and potential customers.
7. The first reference to "Autonomi Entertainment" appeared on the DC discord on the 19th of November 2025.
8. A formal cease and desist letter was sent to the Defendant on the 30th of November, 2025, but ignored.
9. On December the 18th, 2025, the Defendant asked in the DemocracyCraft discord, "[Defamation] is a crime allowed in the purge?"
10. On December the 1st, 2025, the Defendant published false accusations regarding "money laundry" and "alt accounts", indicating that the Plaintiff had been involved in such activities.
11. On December the 18th, 2025, the Defendant publishes an advertisement labelling the Plaintiff's work as "AI written slop".
12. When confronted about these posts by a third party, the Defendant admitted in writing that the advertisement "utilises false accusation".

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant breached the binding agreement as established in messages between them and the Plaintiff. By failing to transfer control of the database, which is an asset of Autonomi, therefore falling under the "100%" of Autonomi, the Defendant has violated the terms of their engagement.
2. By using the name "Autonomi" to market their company, the Defendant is "producing, replicating, or impersonating recognisable signs... that identify a company", in violation of Section 6(1)(a) of the Intellectual Property Act.
3. The Defendant's public claim to be "the real one" while using the Plaintiff's brand is a malicious act that has damaged the Plaintiff's standing in the market, and confusing the customer base.
4. The Defendant has published false statements that have damaged the Plaintiff's professional reputation. The Defendant's inquiries regarding the Purge and admission of using "false accusations" prove targeted malice, in violation of the No More Defamation Act.
5. The Defendant's smear campaign and trademark infringement have intentionally damaged the Plaintiff's standing in the market.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. The transfer of the DB under the name "Autonomi" to be transferred to the Plaintiff.
2. $50,000 in punitive damages for the Defendant's continued blatant bad faith, escalating after this case had begun as seen in P-007 through to P-010, showing a clear disregard for these legal proceedings.
3. $20,000 in compensatory damages for the damage caused to the Plaintiff's commercial reputation, and caused by the Defendant's advertising.
4. All revenue generated from the use of the "Autonomi" brand name, as is laid out in Section 6(2) of the Intellectual Property Act
5. 30% of the total compensation for the Plaintiff additional in legal fees to Vendeka Inc.
6. A public apology from the Defendant, retracting their false statements.

V. EVIDENCE:
P-001: Chat logs dated 25/08/2025, including the Plaintiff's "100%" ownership of Autonomi.
P-002: Chat logs regarding transfer attempts
P-003: Chat logs of the refusal on 18/10/2025
P-004: Chat logs regarding brand name conception.
P-005: Screenshots of the "Autonomi Entertainment" advertisement
P-006: The first reference to "Autonomi Entertainment" on the DC discord.
P-007: Proof of delivery of the Cease & Desist Letter.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

Proof of Representation is attached

DATED: This 1st day of December 2025

 

Attachments

  • AnomalousEntropy Proof of Representation.png
    AnomalousEntropy Proof of Representation.png
    17.9 KB · Views: 116
  • P-001.png
    P-001.png
    65.4 KB · Views: 105
  • P-002.pdf
    P-002.pdf
    73.4 KB · Views: 72
  • P-003.png
    P-003.png
    64.7 KB · Views: 109
  • P-004.jpg
    P-004.jpg
    243.5 KB · Views: 99
  • P-005.png
    P-005.png
    136.3 KB · Views: 96
  • P-006.png
    P-006.png
    54.9 KB · Views: 102
  • P-007.png
    P-007.png
    57.4 KB · Views: 101
Last edited:
@EmmDubz

The Court cannot identify anyone with the username “Caldiron”. The Court would request that you amend your filing to properly name the Defendant.
 
Vennefly said:
@EmmDubz

The Court cannot identify anyone with the username “Caldiron”. The Court would request that you amend your filing to properly name the Defendant.
Click to expand...
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. The filing has been amended to their forums username (.CaldironJa1). Their discord nickname on DC is "Tukiron1" as of the time of this posting.
 

Writ of Summons

@.CaldironJa1 is required to appear before the District Court in the case of AnomalousEntropy v. .CaldironJa1 [2025] DCR 103.

In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for such responses shall be 48 hours after the motion was filed.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 
Present, Your Honour.

1765375155620.png
 
Your Honour,

I have to request an extension until 13.12.25, 22:30 UTC+1 due to irl and DC related circumstances.
 
Talion77 said:
Your Honour,

I have to request an extension until 13.12.25, 22:30 UTC+1 due to irl and DC related circumstances.
Click to expand...

GRANTED.
 
Your Honour,

upon having started settlement negociations, I request that the deadline for the answer to complaint be extended for another 48 hours. My irl schedule is sadly also packed the next days, I will provide you with updates, and if necessary subsitute counsel.
 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Dismiss — Lack of Claim

Your Honour, the Defendant moves to dismiss the third Prayer for relief under Rule 5.5 of the Court Rules and Procedures.

The third prayer for relief concerns itself with compensatory damages. According to the Legal Damages Act, they may be awarded only as per the following:

(1) Definition:
(a) "Compensatory damages" are the damages awarded to a person as compensation; security or protection against a loss or other financial burden; or the restoration of something lost or stolen to its proper owner.
(2) Award:
(a) Compensatory damages will not be awarded without proof of pecuniary loss including compensation for harm to property, harm to earning capacity, and the creation of liabilities; unless they are special damage.
Click to expand...

The simple phrase "The real one ..." should not, by any Court, be held as sufficient to prove harm to earning capacity or pecuniary loss, especially considering the historical earnings / assets of the plaintiff in relation to the damages, who holds 20,000$ in their balance and owns no properties, the damages being prayed for also being 20,000$. As such, we petition this Court to dismiss the third prayer for relief.

 
Your Honour,

I mistakenly sent an incomplete Answer to Complaint by acidentally hitting Ctrl+Enter. I have deleted the post, please instruct me to reverse the deletion (or not) according to your interpretation of procedure.
 
Talion77 said:
Your Honour,

I mistakenly sent an incomplete Answer to Complaint by acidentally hitting Ctrl+Enter. I have deleted the post, please instruct me to reverse the deletion (or not) according to your interpretation of procedure.
Click to expand...

This is fine.
 
Talion77 said:
Your Honour,

upon having started settlement negociations, I request that the deadline for the answer to complaint be extended for another 48 hours. My irl schedule is sadly also packed the next days, I will provide you with updates, and if necessary subsitute counsel.
Click to expand...

GRANTED. New deadline 15 december 2025 at 22:30 UTC+1. Please be advised no further extensions will be granted.
 

Answer to Complaint


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Answer to Complaint

AnomalousEntropy
Plaintiff

v.

.CaldironJa1
Defendant

I. Answer to Complaint​

1. DENIES that an agreement was entered into, interperting "agreement" as a "Contract" under the Contracts Act.
2. AFFIRMS that the plaintiff explicitly confirmed in writing regarding ownership: "100% yours [The Plaintiff's]", but DENIES that it took place during the agreement [negociations].
3. NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES.
4. AFFIRMS.
5. DENIES, that the agreement was breached, interperting "agreement" as a "Contract" under the Contracts Act, but AFFIRMS that the defendant stated they wouldn't transfer the DB giving the reason: "Idk, I'm feeling like it and I'm entitled to it."
6. AFFIRMS, that Defendant has since publicly advertised their company "Autonomi Entertainment" and claiming to be "The real one", but DENIES any other facts claimed in 6.
7. NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES.
8. AFFIRMS.

II. Defences​

No Contract was Established​

According to the Contracts Act, a valid contract requires the following elements (§4(2)):

(2) A valid contract is formed when the following legal test is met:
(a) Offer. An offer is a clear and unequivocal communication expressing a party's willingness to enter into a contract, either explicitly stated or reasonably inferred from the circumstances.
(b) Acceptance. Acceptance is the positive and unambiguous response to an offer communicated to the offeror, mirroring the terms of the offer and conveyed through various means.
(c) Consideration. Consideration, an essential element, involves the exchange of something of value between parties, with sufficiency though not necessarily adequacy. Consideration can be tangible or intanglbie.
(d) Intent. Parties must demonstrate a clear intention to create legal obligations for the contract to be valid.
(e) Capacity. Parties entering into a contract must possess the legal capacity to do so. Players with low playtime may lack the capacity to fairly enter a contract.
Click to expand...

Let's conduct the legal test to see if a valid contract could have formed. Did "clear and unequivocal communication expressing a party's willingness to enter into a contract, either explicitly stated or reasonably inferred from the circumstances" happen? No. The communication between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is not clear at all, the usage of phrases like "idk" indicate severe doubts present. An agreement can therefore not exist.

Onto the next, Acceptance. Again, we arrive at the issue of ambiguity. The offer was not communicated clearly, how was the Defendant supposed to accept it? This criteria is also not met. Regarding Consideration, it is defined as

"the exchange of something of value between parties, with sufficiency though not necessarily adequacy"
Click to expand...

If we interpret the agreement according to the plaintiff, and assume it to have a valid offer and acceptance according to the plaintif (which it both lacks, as established before), it fully lacks consideration. Defendant did not gain anything of value in this agreement, as such, it was a promise under §16(1)(p), lacking consideration.

We could go on and show more regarding this contract, but it is not necessary. A valid contract needs all 5 of the elements, this one lacks at least 3. I do not see how this "agreement" could be interpreted as a binding contract. The breach of contract claim for relief (Claim 1) is therefore moot.

The Intellectual Property of the Name "Autonomi" was derived from the Federation of Autonomous Spaces​

On the 9th of July, the now deleted user Jesseya posted the "Federation of Autonomous Spaces" in the #business channel on the DemocracyCraft discord. After Jesseyas temporary departure from DC, Defendant took up Management of the business. The name "Autonomi" is clearly derived from the F. A. S., also shown in the screenshots. Plaintiff acknowledged this with their statements "haha true" and "I forgot about the similarity". As such, Claim 2 is moot, the intellectual property did not belong to them, but rather to the F. A. S.


 
Your Honour, I request to fix the spelling of „plaintif“ in my answer to complaint, I sadly overlooked it.
 
Talion77 said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Dismiss — Lack of Claim

Your Honour, the Defendant moves to dismiss the third Prayer for relief under Rule 5.5 of the Court Rules and Procedures.

The third prayer for relief concerns itself with compensatory damages. According to the Legal Damages Act, they may be awarded only as per the following:



The simple phrase "The real one ..." should not, by any Court, be held as sufficient to prove harm to earning capacity or pecuniary loss, especially considering the historical earnings / assets of the plaintiff in relation to the damages, who holds 20,000$ in their balance and owns no properties, the damages being prayed for also being 20,000$. As such, we petition this Court to dismiss the third prayer for relief.

Click to expand...

DENIED. It is entirely possible that Plaintiff will, over the course of discovery, introduce facts and evidence proving some kind of commercial damages to their business from Defendant's alleged actions. Therefore, we're in too early of a stage in this case to dismiss this Prayer for Relief at this point.
 
We will now enter discovery, which will last for 5 days. Discovery may be ended early upon joint request by the Parties.

@Talion77 @EmmDubz.
 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your honour, we would like to request that the Defendant present transaction logs for the "Autonomi" db dating back to its creation, in addition to any bank accounts related to Autonomi, or Autonomi Entertainment.

Thank you.

 
Notice of Intent to Amend Complaint

Your honour, we would like to request an amendment to the complaint due to developments since this cases' filing.

Since filing, the Defendant has engaged in a continued, and escalating, pattern of malicious conduct targeting the Plaintiff. Specifically, the Defendant has launched a smear campaign and published false statements regarding the Plaintiff's professional work, and admitting to using "false accusations".

This conduct is libelous in nature, and therefore means that we wish to alter the damages sought, as the Defendant's actions are no longer simply a business dispute, but a continued, targeted attempt at destroying the Plaintiff's reputation, causing stress, and a loss of enjoyment.

All together, our requested amendments include an added claim (libel), updated facts to represent these new events, and an updated prayer to relief.

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE:
P-007: Screenshot of an advertisement posted by the Defendant labelling the Plaintiff's work "AI written slop".
P-008: Screenshot of the Defendant asking whether "[Defamation] is a crime allowed during the purge?"
P-009: Post from the Defendant alleging "money laundry, alt accounts, AI written code."
P-010: The Defendant admitting utilising "false accusations" in their advertisement (P-007)
 

Attachments

  • P-007.png
    P-007.png
    110.9 KB · Views: 69
  • P-008.png
    P-008.png
    26.2 KB · Views: 64
  • P-009.png
    P-009.png
    41.6 KB · Views: 64
  • P-010.pdf
    P-010.pdf
    117 KB · Views: 47
EmmDubz said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your honour, we would like to request that the Defendant present transaction logs for the "Autonomi" db dating back to its creation, in addition to any bank accounts related to Autonomi, or Autonomi Entertainment.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

GRANTED. Defendant is compelled to provide these records. @Talion77
 
EmmDubz said:
Notice of Intent to Amend Complaint

Your honour, we would like to request an amendment to the complaint due to developments since this cases' filing.

Since filing, the Defendant has engaged in a continued, and escalating, pattern of malicious conduct targeting the Plaintiff. Specifically, the Defendant has launched a smear campaign and published false statements regarding the Plaintiff's professional work, and admitting to using "false accusations".

This conduct is libelous in nature, and therefore means that we wish to alter the damages sought, as the Defendant's actions are no longer simply a business dispute, but a continued, targeted attempt at destroying the Plaintiff's reputation, causing stress, and a loss of enjoyment.

All together, our requested amendments include an added claim (libel), updated facts to represent these new events, and an updated prayer to relief.

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE:
P-007: Screenshot of an advertisement posted by the Defendant labelling the Plaintiff's work "AI written slop".
P-008: Screenshot of the Defendant asking whether "[Defamation] is a crime allowed during the purge?"
P-009: Post from the Defendant alleging "money laundry, alt accounts, AI written code."
P-010: The Defendant admitting utilising "false accusations" in their advertisement (P-007)
Click to expand...

You may amend your Complaint.
 
@Talion77 @EmmDubz I'll be your JO.

To my knowledge we are on Opening Statements?
 
@EmmDubz @Talion77 In full review of the case, I don't see any witness. Thus, I'm going to skip Opening Statements and move to Closing Statements.

@EmmDubz You have until 1/8/26 @ 9pm EST to present your Closing Statement
@Talion77 You have until 1/11/26 @ 9pm EST to present your Closing Statement
 
Good day to all parties. Due to my recent appointment, I will be presiding over this case from now on.

The deadlines for Closing Statements shall remain the same, unless a request for an extension is granted, in which case the deadlines will be shifted backwards accordingly.
 

Closing Statement



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CLOSING STATEMENT

SUMMARY

This case concerns a business arrangement entered into by the Plaintiff and Defendant to establish and operate "Autonomi." The facts show that the parties agreed on a specific structure: the Plaintiff would retain 100% ownership of the entity and its assets, while the Defendant would manage administration, such as the in-game db.

Despite this clear agreement, the Defendant has refused to transfer control of the company's db to the agreed-upon owner: the Plaintiff. Furthermore, the Defendant has since launched a business using the Plaintiff's brand name and has published false statements regarding the Plaintiff's work which has damaged their professional reputation.

I. A Valid Contract was Formed

The Defendant suggests no contract exists. However, the evidence satisfies all four requirements of a binding agreement under the Contracts Act.

  • Offer & Acceptance: The chat logs in P-001 show that the Defendant offered his services to the Plaintiff, stating explicitly: "I'll take just what do you think it's fair for my help." The Plaintiff accepted this offer of "help" to launch the business.
  • Intent: The Defendant’s own written statement defines the terms of this arrangement: "You basically... 100% yours." This proves the clear intent that the Plaintiff would be the sole owner of the business assets, regardless of the administrative assistance provided by the Defendant.
  • Consideration: A contract requires an exchange of value. The Plaintiff provided the business concept and Intellectual Property (the "Autonomi" brand). The Defendant provided the administrative labor. Additionally, the agreement contained an express provision for compensation ("what you think is fair"), establishing a binding legal obligation.

II. Breach of Agreement

The Defendant breached this valid agreement by refusing to transfer the database.

  • The logs (P-002) show the Defendant initially agreeing to transfer the database, acknowledging his obligation to the owner.
  • His subsequent refusal on October the 18th (P-003), citing only that he was "feeling like it," constitutes a breach of the agreed ownership structure. The db is an asset of the business, and by the Defendant's own admission, the business belongs to the Plaintiff.
III. Trademark Infringement and Defamation

The Defendant’s conduct following the breach demonstrates bad faith violations of statutory law.

  • Trademark Infringement: The Defendant launched "Autonomi Entertainment," utilizing the exact name of the Plaintiff's business to market their own business (P-005). This violates Section 6(1)(a) of the Intellectual Property Act by replicating a recognizable sign that identifies the Plaintiff's business.
  • Defamation: The Defendant published advertisements stating as fact that the Plaintiff’s literary works were "AI Written Slop" (P-007) and accusing the Plaintiff of "money laundry" (P-009).
  • Proof of Malice: The Defendant’s intent is documented. He publicly inquired if defamation was allowed during the Purge (P-008), and subsequently admitted in writing that his advertisement "utilises false accusation" (P-010). This confirms the statements were made with knowledge of their falsity, satisfying the standard for defamation damages.
IV. Conclusion
The evidence establishes that a business arrangement existed and that the Plaintiff was the agreed-upon owner ("100%"). The Defendant’s subsequent refusal to transfer the business asset (the db) is a breach of that arrangement.

Furthermore, the Defendant’s launch of a brand using the Autonomi name and publication of admitted "false accusations" constitute separate violations of the Intellectual Property Act and No More Defamation Act.

 
Muggy21 said:
@EmmDubz @Talion77 In full review of the case, I don't see any witness. Thus, I'm going to skip Opening Statements and move to Closing Statements.

@EmmDubz You have until 1/8/26 @ 9pm EST to present your Closing Statement
@Talion77 You have until 1/11/26 @ 9pm EST to present your Closing Statement
Click to expand...
As stated earlier by Judge Muggy21, the Defendant's Counsel (@Talion77) now has until 1/11/26 (MM/DD/YY) @ 9pm EST to present their Closing Statements.
 
Your Honour, due to political circumstances (for example the recent Congressional election), I request a 48 hour extension in regards to the closing statement.
 
Talion77 said:
Your Honour, due to political circumstances (for example the recent Congressional election), I request a 48 hour extension in regards to the closing statement.
Click to expand...
Granted, deadline extended to 1/13/26 (MM/DD/YY) @ 9pm EST.
 
Pepecuu said:
Granted, deadline extended to 1/13/26 (MM/DD/YY) @ 9pm EST.
Click to expand...
Due to a Forum outage, this deadline has been further extended (via consensus in a sidebar) to 1/16/26 (MM/DD/YY) @ 12am EST.

1000052472.png
@Talion77
 

Closing Statement



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Closing Statement

Your Honour, this case concerns itself with an alleged contract, which however under the clear rules of contract law cannot be accepted as a contract, and with intellectual property with disputed ownership.

Ambiguity or visible doubt makes an Offer or Acceptance thereof invalid​


The Contracts Act clearly states:

(2) A valid contract is formed when the following legal test is met:
(a) Offer. An offer is a clear and unequivocal communication expressing a party's willingness to enter into a contract, either explicitly stated or reasonably inferred from the circumstances.
(b) Acceptance. Acceptance is the positive and unambiguous response to an offer communicated to the offeror, mi
rroring the terms of the offer and conveyed through various means.
Click to expand...

The additionally bolded parts infer that an offer, and acceptance thereof, need to be clear and unambiguous. Does this legal standard apply to the so-called “contract” between the parties? Again, no, unclear phrases (“I’ll take just what do you think is fair for my help”, “Idk, I don’t need much money”) indicate doubt present that prevents a contract from forming. The terms were not outlined clearly at all, a contract couldn’t have been formed.

Defendant Posessed the Intellectual Property Through an Agent​


As stated earlier, on the 9th of July, the now deleted user Jesseya posted the "Federation of Autonomous Spaces" (FAS) in the #business channel on the DemocracyCraft discord. After Jesseya's temporary departure from DC, Defendant took up Management of the business. The names “Autonomi” and “Federation of Autonomous Spaces” are inherently similar to one another, and the FAS existed a long time prior to Autonomi. Furthermore, plaintiff was and still is to this day a member of the FAS. If anything, Plaintiff used the defendant's intellectual property without consent, not the other way around.

Plaintiff proved no pecuniary harm or reduced earning capacity to justify compensatory damages​


The plaintiff, in his whole case, fails to mention why the third prayer for relief should be granted. As per the Legal Damages Act, compensatory damages are defined as follows:

(1) Definition:
(a) "Compensatory damages" are the damages awarded to a person as compensation; security or protection against a loss or other financial burden; or the restoration of something lost or stolen to its proper owner.
(2) Award:
(a) Compensatory damages will not be awarded without proof of pecuniary loss including compensation for harm to property, harm to earning capacity, and the creation of liabilities; unless they are special damage.
Click to expand...

Plaintiff has not, with a single sentence in the entire case, proven or mentioned that he has suffered “pecuniary loss including compensation for harm to property, harm to earning capacity, or the creation of liabilities”. This prayer should therefore not be granted, as it lacks a factual basis.

So stated.

 
The Court is now in recess pending a verdict.

Thank you to all parties.
 
Good afternoon,

I would like to respectfully ask for an update on the progress of this case.
 

Verdict

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AnomalousEntropy v. .CaldironJa1 [2025] DCR 103

I. Plaintiff's Position
1. A contract was formed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the establishment of "Autonomi” business.
2. The Defendant breached this contract by refusing to transfer control of the company's db.
3. The Defendant has launched a separate business using the same brand name (without the Plaintiff’s consent).
4. The Defendant has published false statements regarding the Plaintiff's work, damaging their “professional reputation”.


II. Defendant's Position
1. A contract was not formed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, due to ambiguity in its offer.
2. The Defendant owns the intellectual property (brand name) through an agent (FAS).
3. The Plaintiff did not sufficiently prove harm in earning capacity as a result of the Defendant’s new business.


III. The Court's Opinion
The Court would like to first apologise for its delay in rendering this verdict, as other commitments had taken away any spare time I have had to deliberate on this issue. But let us move on to the opinion.

The Court finds three major areas of dispute between both parties of the case, as follows:
- Formation and breach of contract,
- Violation of the Intellectual Property Act, and
- Defamatory statements under the No More Defamation Act.

Breach of Contract and transfer of DB
To form a valid contract, §4(2) of the Contracts Act states that the elements of offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and capacity have to be met. The dispute is particularly centered around whether the offer and acceptance were sufficiently stated for both parties to form a binding contract.

For offer to be fulfilled as an element of a binding contract, it must be “clear and unequivocal communication expressing a party's willingness to enter into a contract, either explicitly stated or reasonably inferred from the circumstances.” The Court finds that the ambiguity in the communications between both parties was relatively constant, thus introducing doubt in whether each party was truly willing to enter into a contract.

Similarly, acceptance is defined by “positive and unambiguous response to an offer communicated to the offeror, mirroring the terms of the offer and conveyed through various means.” While the response to the offer may have been positive, the underlying ambiguity and lack of confirmatory reply to the offer’s terms make acceptance less likely to be possible, thus the agreement would have also lacked this element to form a binding contract.

Therefore in an absence of a valid contract, there is no statutory basis for the Plaintiff to mandate that the Defendant transfer the db over to them.


Intellectual Property violation
Under §6(1)(a) of the Intellectual Property Act, the Commonwealth prohibits others from “Producing, replicating or impersonating recognizable signs, designs, or expressions that identify a company, product, or service.” Through their answer to complaint, the Defendant admits to having “since publicly advertised their company "Autonomi Entertainment" and claiming to be "The real one"”, while the Plaintiff has claimed to operate a business using the “Autonomi” name prior to the Defendant’s advertisements (a claim that the Defendant does not dispute).

Given these circumstances, the Defendant’s use of “the real one” is an attempt to gain authenticity for their business, even when the other is a pre-existing commercial identity, thus violating the Intellectual Property Act.

However, the Legal Damages Act permits compensatory damages only upon proof of pecuniary loss, such as reduced income or measurable financial harm. These have not been proven by the Plaintiff through evidence or witness testimony, and therefore shall not be awarded.


Defamatory statements
Under the No More Defamation Act, libel is defined as a “method of defamation expressed by documents, signs, published media, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business, profession or organization.” Through the use of hostile phrases such as “AI written slop” to target the Plaintiff’s work, self admissions of false accusations within the Defendant's ads, alongside persuasive proof of intent to commit defamation, the Court finds that the Defendant has injured the Plaintiff's reputation in their profession, and therefore violated the No More Defamation Act.


IV. Decision
Accordingly, the Court rules in favour of the Plaintiff, and grants the following:
1. A public apology from the Defendant to the Plaintiff in relation to the false statements made. The details may be negotiated by the parties, but the apology has to be completed within a reasonable timeframe, following settlement of details.
2. $20,000 in Punitive Damages for defamation against the Plaintiff.
3. An additional 30% of total case value ($6,000) to be paid to the Plaintiff’s legal counsel (Vendeka).

The Court thanks all parties for their time.

@EmmDubz @Talion77
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top