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

[EmmDubz]

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.

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.

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.

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. $10,000 in punitive damages for the Defendant's bad faith, and malicious attempt to hijack the Plaintiff's commercial branding.
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.

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

 

[Vennefly]

@EmmDubz

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

 

[EmmDubz]

@EmmDubz

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

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.

 

[Vennefly]

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.

 

[Talion77]

Present, Your Honour.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[Vennefly]

Present, Your Honour.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

View attachment 68604

Thank you. You have 48 hours to present an Answer to Complaint.

 

[Talion77]

Your Honour,

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

 

[Vennefly]

Your Honour,

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

GRANTED.

 

[Talion77]

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.

 

[Talion77]

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.

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.

 

[Talion77]

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.

 

[Vennefly]

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.

This is fine.

 

[Vennefly]

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.

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

 

[Talion77]

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.

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"

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.

 

[Talion77]

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