Lawsuit: Dismissed ThePufferOffical v. xEndeavour [2025] DCR 69

[ThePuffer]

ThePufferOffical vs xEndeavour

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


ThePufferOffical
Plaintiff

v.

End
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On September 25th, Plaintiff filed a registration for a political party under the name the Reform Redmont Party (herby referred to as Plaintiff's Reform Party or PRP). The next day, the defendant, the leader of a different political party by the name Redmont Reform Party (herby referred to as the defendant's reform party or DRP), responded to the party’s creation with the statement, “Sorry to rain on your parade, but I still own the trademark for this party name.”, It is important to note two things:

1. The PRP and the DRP, though different in name, are two different political parties, with different branding and different party structures.
2. The DRP was deregistered on August 15, 2025, thus causing the defendant to lose trademark on the parties' name.

I. PARTIES

1. ThePufferOffical
2. The Reform Redmont Political Party
3. xEndeavour
4. The Redmont Reformed Political Party

II. FACTS
1. August 15, 2025, Defendant deregisters a political party by the name “Redmont Reformed Party”
2. September 25th, 2025, without knowledge of the existence of the “Redmont Reformed Party”, Plaintiff files a registration for a political party called the Reform Refmont Party.
3. September 26th, 2025, defendant posts on the registration of the Reform Redmont Party, a statement claiming to own the copyrighted name for the part.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Defendant lost the copyright for the name Redmont Reformed Party when the party was deregistered. By claiming to still own the copyright, the defendant has stained the name of the plaintiff's party as “a ripoff party.”
2. The Reform Redmont Party was created without knowledge of the Redmont Reformed Party.
3. The branding, ideology, and logo of both political parties are entirely different, with the only similarity between the two parties being their name.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The deletion of any claims of owning the Reform Redmont Party's trademark
2. A public apology about the frivolous claims made by the Defendant
3. 5,000$ in punitive damages



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.

DATED: This 26 day of September, 2025

Attached here is some evidence

Evidence of Redmont Reform Party Deregistration
Witness for Plaintiffs' lack of knowledge forward the Redmont Reform Party: Plura72
Defendants' claims about trademark infringement

 

[Muggy21]

Writ of Summons

@End, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of ThePufferOffical v. xEndeavour


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

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.

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
ThePufferOffical v. xEndeavour [2025] DCR 69

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On review of the complaint, the Court is concerned with Plaintiff’s personal ability to sustain this lawsuit. If the Court understands the Complaint correctly, xEndeavour allegedly infringed on the IP of the “Reform Party” (I’m not dealing with the acronyms, it’s confusing) by attempting to proffer that the “Redmont Party” was still active. However, if this is true, then plaintiff is representing the interests of the Reform Party, not of himself; unless the Court is to proceed under another legal theory? In order for him to do that, he's have to at least be a Solicitor, which Plaintiff is not.


@ThePufferOffical you shall 72 hours to clarify this to the Court or obtain counsel. Failure to do so will result in a referral to the Department of Justice on the charge of Legal Qualification Fraud (see Criminal Code Act). Furthermore, the Court


All other deadlines preserved.

 

[ThePuffer]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
I, the Plaintiff, have recently received my solicitor license, and as such I ask to have trial continue as usuall.
Attached below is a screenshot of my license.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
I, the Plaintiff, have recently received my solicitor license, and as such I ask to have trial continue as usuall.
Attached below is a screenshot of my license.
View attachment 63019

Thank you, are you representing yourself or the "Reform Party"?

 

[ThePuffer]

The Reform Party, which is chairmend by me

 

[Muggy21]

The Reform Party, which is chairmend by me

The Court thanks you for clarifying.
I withhold my concerns stated in the OSC (Order to Show Cause).

 

[End]

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


ThePufferOfficial
Plaintiff

v.

End
Defendant

The Defendant respectfully moves this Court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety.

I. FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

1. The Plaintiff alleges a breach of trademark law. However, under Section 6 of the Intellectual Property Act, a breach requires 'producing, replicating or impersonating recognizable signs, designs, or expressions.'
2. The Defendant did not produce, replicate, or impersonate the Plaintiff’s branding, name, or designs. The sole action was a public statement noting the prior existence of the Redmont Reform Party and its recognised identity.
3. A comment expressing prior ownership or concern of confusion does not fall within the statutory definition of trademark breach.

II. NO HARM

1. The Plaintiff alleges reputational damage and seeks punitive damages. However, no evidence is offered of actual harm, financial loss, or political impact.
2. The Plaintiff’s allegations of being called a 'ripoff party' are speculative, unsubstantiated, and insufficient to meet the threshold of damages under Section 6(2), which requires revenue or compensable harm.

III. POLITICAL COMMUNICATIONS

1. Statements regarding political parties are political communication. Therefore, they are protected by the constitution.

CONCLUSION

The Plaintiff has failed to present facts sufficient to establish a breach of trademark under the Intellectual Property Act. No evidence of damages been presented. As such, the Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. Grant this Motion to Dismiss;
2. Dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice; and
3. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
4. Legal Costs as determined by the court

DATED: This 27th day of September, 2025

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
ThePufferOffical v. xEndeavour [2025] DCR 69
Order to Show Cause - xEndeavour’s Motion to Dismiss

In the interest of justice, the Court reads Plaintiff’s complaint in the best light.


xEndeavour states that Plaintiff alleges an allegation of trademark infringement as defined under the Intellectual Property Act. Since, Plaintiff has not alleged a trademark infringement, Defendant proffers that this is fatal for failure to substantiate a claim.


The Court will not construe the Complaint so narrowly; the Plaintiff does not explicitly rely on the IPA in his prosecution, thus the Court will not narrow its analysis to that Act alone. Furthermore, the Court will look to the substance of the Complaint rather than the formality therein. The Complaint, however deficient Defendant believes it to be, does nonetheless proffers allegations that are otherwise inappropriate to disregard at this time.

Furthermore, the same reasoning applies to Defendant’s “No Harm” argument.

Lastly, the Defendant’s defense that the Constitution protects political communication is inspiring, but not yet compelling. The Court will hear from the Plaintiff on this point.


@ThePuffer, you are ordered to offer a response as to why xEndeavour is not entitled to his prayer for dismissal on the basis that the right to political communication (Const 32 (6)) (see Constitution of Redmont) bars this action*. You shall have 48 hours.

@End You may also brief the Court if you wish to expand on your Political Communication point.


All other deadlines are stayed pending this response.

 

[ThePuffer]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
LEGAL BRIEF REGARDING DEFENDANTS CLAIMS
The case presented before you is not only of trademark, but of defamation, as Plaintiffs believe that his political party's name was stained by such defamatory statements (See Claims for relief (1.)). The right to political communication, as defined in the Constitution, is broad and consists only as a general statement (see Const 32 (6)).
It is for those reasons that one must look at the difference between political communication, which is protected under the Constitution, and defamation, which is not protected. To find said difference, one is recommended to look towards the English language, to understand the true meaning of the constitution, as well as legal precedents, if any, that will help set the difference between political communication and defamatory statements.

The English Language defines defame as: to harm the reputation of by communicating false statements about (see Merriam-Webster here: ).
On the other hand, the English definition for Political Communication is as follows: “Political communication is defined as an interactive process involving the transmission of information among politicians, the news media, and the public, operating in multiple directions: from governing institutions to citizens, among political actors, and from public opinion to authorities.” (See the definition presented in the Science Direct article on the topic: here)
The Definition of Political Communication, at least as presented in the English Language, does NOT include defamatory statements, such as the one present in this case.
Furthermore, the definition of defamation is to harm the reputation of by communicating false statements about, which is clearly the issue presented in the case. As such, the defendant's claim that the right to Political Communication protects him is wrong.
In a clear sense of irony, one could argue that the defendant's claims, which damaged the reputation of the Plaintiffs' Reform Party, were in a clear breach of the Political Communications Act, as the claims wrongfully hurt public opinion.

 

[ThePuffer]

The plaintfif would also like to file the following motion:

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

The plaintiff requests from the court a writ of mandamus to the Department of State (herby referred to as DOS), to pause the ten-day timer for the Reform Redmont Party’s (herby referred to as Reform Party) registration until all legal proceedings are over.

1. What was supposed to be a quick case of definition filled by Plaintiff against the defendant has quickly spiraled out of control, and is taking longer than the ten-day registration timer.
2. Due to the Reform Redmont Party registration being the center of this case, and as it seems the case will take longer than ten days, it is of vital importance for the registration timer to be stopped.
3. A writ of Mandamus will force the DOS to stop the registration timer and ensure that the case continues as usual.
4. It is under the plaintiffs' belief that the defamatory statements in the case hurt the Reform Party's fair chance for registration.
5. In accordance with the Electoral Act section 11, subsection 3: “Electoral Officers are charged with serving as the stewards of free and fair elections.” It is under the plaintiffs' belief that stopping the timer and (if possible) preventing anyone from commenting on the forum post for the party’s registration, until the case is over, will help maintain a “free and fair election”.

 

[ThePuffer]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

May it please the court that on September 27th, 2025, the defendant texted the following message in the #legal Discord channel.
“Feel free to drop the case, and I won't pursue legal costs.” The message was sent as a comment to a message sent earlier that day from Plaintiff, which said: “wait end is a former chief justice? ok now im realy screwd”

The Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial (see Const (9)). The written threats that the defendant had made had attempted to obstruct justice by having the plaintiff drop the case out of fear.
It is for those reasons that Plaintiff must request defendant be sanctioned for intimidating Plaintiff.
Defendants may believe that just because they were the former Chief Justice, they have more power in the legal land. Plaintiff must therefore request from the court to prove the defendant wrong, in order to help maintain a fair and impartial justice system.

With regards,
ThePufferOffical

 

[End]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

May it please the court that on September 27th, 2025, the defendant texted the following message in the #legal Discord channel.
“Feel free to drop the case, and I won't pursue legal costs.” The message was sent as a comment to a message sent earlier that day from Plaintiff, which said: “wait end is a former chief justice? ok now im realy screwd”

The Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial (see Const (9)). The written threats that the defendant had made had attempted to obstruct justice by having the plaintiff drop the case out of fear.
It is for those reasons that Plaintiff must request defendant be sanctioned for intimidating Plaintiff.
Defendants may believe that just because they were the former Chief Justice, they have more power in the legal land. Plaintiff must therefore request from the court to prove the defendant wrong, in order to help maintain a fair and impartial justice system.

With regards,
ThePufferOffical

Your honour, I'm not sure that a conditional settlement offer represents misconduct, let alone misconduct requiring sanctioning.

A statement of fact should not be threatening for a plaintiff.

 

[End]

The plaintfif would also like to file the following motion:

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

The plaintiff requests from the court a writ of mandamus to the Department of State (herby referred to as DOS), to pause the ten-day timer for the Reform Redmont Party’s (herby referred to as Reform Party) registration until all legal proceedings are over.

1. What was supposed to be a quick case of definition filled by Plaintiff against the defendant has quickly spiraled out of control, and is taking longer than the ten-day registration timer.
2. Due to the Reform Redmont Party registration being the center of this case, and as it seems the case will take longer than ten days, it is of vital importance for the registration timer to be stopped.
3. A writ of Mandamus will force the DOS to stop the registration timer and ensure that the case continues as usual.
4. It is under the plaintiffs' belief that the defamatory statements in the case hurt the Reform Party's fair chance for registration.
5. In accordance with the Electoral Act section 11, subsection 3: “Electoral Officers are charged with serving as the stewards of free and fair elections.” It is under the plaintiffs' belief that stopping the timer and (if possible) preventing anyone from commenting on the forum post for the party’s registration, until the case is over, will help maintain a “free and fair election”.

Objection

OBJECTION - Relevance/Breach of Procedure

The support for the registration of the party is unaffected by the conduct of this court case. The Plaintiff claims that because this lawsuit touches on the Reform Redmont Party, the registration process must be stayed. The Plaintiff’s assertion that 'defamatory statements' may impact registration is speculative.

I'd also offer that this case is certainly not out of control nor is that relevant to the conduct of the registration process.

A writ of mandamus cannot be ordered for a private matter, its to compel where a statutory duty has not been carried out.

Requires the government, a government agency, corporation, or subordinate court to do some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do, and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty. This is generally used to resolve government disputes.

 

[ThePuffer]

Your honour, I'm not sure that a conditional settlement offer represents misconduct, let alone misconduct requiring sanctioning.

A statement of fact should not be threatening for a plaintiff.

Your honor, it is important to note that it is not the conditional settlement offer that is the problem here, rather it is the clear abuse of defendants former position as Chief Justice, in order to threaten plaintiff. It is important to note that if the message had been sent in any other context, it would have been a statement of fact, but that due to the message it had replied to, it should be clear that this is not just a statement of facts. Attached below is, the message with it context.

 

[End]

Your honor, it is important to note that it is not the conditional settlement offer that is the problem here, rather it is the clear abuse of defendants former position as Chief Justice, in order to threaten plaintiff. It is important to note that if the message had been sent in any other context, it would have been a statement of fact, but that due to the message it had replied to, it should be clear that this is not just a statement of facts. Attached below is, the message with it context. View attachment 63057

Objection

Breach of Procedure

Plaintiff is responding out of turn.

Objection

Speculation and Relevance

The Defendant no longer holds the office of Chief Justice and has no judicial authority. The Plaintiff’s references to the Defendant’s former role are irrelevant and prejudicial. My former position in government does not transform a lawful settlement communication into misconduct.

 

[End]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
LEGAL BRIEF REGARDING DEFENDANTS CLAIMS
The case presented before you is not only of trademark, but of defamation, as Plaintiffs believe that his political party's name was stained by such defamatory statements (See Claims for relief (1.)). The right to political communication, as defined in the Constitution, is broad and consists only as a general statement (see Const 32 (6)).
It is for those reasons that one must look at the difference between political communication, which is protected under the Constitution, and defamation, which is not protected. To find said difference, one is recommended to look towards the English language, to understand the true meaning of the constitution, as well as legal precedents, if any, that will help set the difference between political communication and defamatory statements.

The English Language defines defame as: to harm the reputation of by communicating false statements about (see Merriam-Webster here: ).
On the other hand, the English definition for Political Communication is as follows: “Political communication is defined as an interactive process involving the transmission of information among politicians, the news media, and the public, operating in multiple directions: from governing institutions to citizens, among political actors, and from public opinion to authorities.” (See the definition presented in the Science Direct article on the topic: here)
The Definition of Political Communication, at least as presented in the English Language, does NOT include defamatory statements, such as the one present in this case.
Furthermore, the definition of defamation is to harm the reputation of by communicating false statements about, which is clearly the issue presented in the case. As such, the defendant's claim that the right to Political Communication protects him is wrong.
In a clear sense of irony, one could argue that the defendant's claims, which damaged the reputation of the Plaintiffs' Reform Party, were in a clear breach of the Political Communications Act, as the claims wrongfully hurt public opinion.

Objection

Relevance

The Merriam Webster Dictionary definition is irrelevant, as the No More Defamation Act defines defamation in Redmont Law.

Act of Congress Thread 'No More Defamation Act'

Jun 20, 2024

House Vote: 4-2-2
Senate Vote: 2-1-0

A
BILL
To

Protect citizens from Defamation

The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law:

1 - Short Title and Enactment

(1) This Act may be cited as the 'No More Defamation Act.'

(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage.

(3) This Act has been authored by Speaker Unitymaster.

(4) This Act has been co-sponsored by Senator...

• Unitymaster
• Replies: 2
• Forum: Administrative Law

• 

 

[ThePuffer]

Objection

Relevance

The Merriam Webster Dictionary definition is irrelevant, as the No More Defamation Act defines defamation in Redmont Law.

Act of Congress Thread 'No More Defamation Act'

Jun 20, 2024

House Vote: 4-2-2
Senate Vote: 2-1-0

A
BILL
To

Protect citizens from Defamation

The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law:

1 - Short Title and Enactment

(1) This Act may be cited as the 'No More Defamation Act.'

(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage.

(3) This Act has been authored by Speaker Unitymaster.

(4) This Act has been co-sponsored by Senator...

• Unitymaster
• Replies: 2
• Forum: Administrative Law

• 

Your honor may I rephrase?

 

[End]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
LEGAL BRIEF REGARDING DEFENDANTS CLAIMS
The case presented before you is not only of trademark, but of defamation, as Plaintiffs believe that his political party's name was stained by such defamatory statements (See Claims for relief (1.)). The right to political communication, as defined in the Constitution, is broad and consists only as a general statement (see Const 32 (6)).
It is for those reasons that one must look at the difference between political communication, which is protected under the Constitution, and defamation, which is not protected. To find said difference, one is recommended to look towards the English language, to understand the true meaning of the constitution, as well as legal precedents, if any, that will help set the difference between political communication and defamatory statements.

The English Language defines defame as: to harm the reputation of by communicating false statements about (see Merriam-Webster here: ).
On the other hand, the English definition for Political Communication is as follows: “Political communication is defined as an interactive process involving the transmission of information among politicians, the news media, and the public, operating in multiple directions: from governing institutions to citizens, among political actors, and from public opinion to authorities.” (See the definition presented in the Science Direct article on the topic: here)
The Definition of Political Communication, at least as presented in the English Language, does NOT include defamatory statements, such as the one present in this case.
Furthermore, the definition of defamation is to harm the reputation of by communicating false statements about, which is clearly the issue presented in the case. As such, the defendant's claim that the right to Political Communication protects him is wrong.
In a clear sense of irony, one could argue that the defendant's claims, which damaged the reputation of the Plaintiffs' Reform Party, were in a clear breach of the Political Communications Act, as the claims wrongfully hurt public opinion.

The Constitution enshrines the right to political communication in general terms. This Court has consistently recognised that political communication encompasses all forms of debate, criticism, and commentary relating to politics. The Plaintiff’s narrow reading of the right is contrary to the Constitution’s text and purpose, as well as years of precedent.

Political speech by its nature influences public opinion. To hold that unfavourable commentary is prohibited because it may sway opinion against a party is completely against the constitution's text and purpose.

Even if this was true, the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the statements at issue were factually false. For defamation to occur, reputational harm must have occurred.

 

[End]

D-001

Proof of ownership of 'RRP' as a commercial registration of the Redmont Reform Party.

Registered some time ago, but unable to determine date.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

May it please the court that on September 27th, 2025, the defendant texted the following message in the #legal Discord channel.
“Feel free to drop the case, and I won't pursue legal costs.” The message was sent as a comment to a message sent earlier that day from Plaintiff, which said: “wait end is a former chief justice? ok now im realy screwd”

The Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial (see Const (9)). The written threats that the defendant had made had attempted to obstruct justice by having the plaintiff drop the case out of fear.
It is for those reasons that Plaintiff must request defendant be sanctioned for intimidating Plaintiff.
Defendants may believe that just because they were the former Chief Justice, they have more power in the legal land. Plaintiff must therefore request from the court to prove the defendant wrong, in order to help maintain a fair and impartial justice system.

With regards,
ThePufferOffical

Denied.

The Court does not see a threat; the rest of the argument is academic.

 

[Muggy21]

Objection

Breach of Procedure

Plaintiff is responding out of turn.

Sustained.
A response to a response is not permitted.

Objection

Speculation and Relevance

The Defendant no longer holds the office of Chief Justice and has no judicial authority. The Plaintiff’s references to the Defendant’s former role are irrelevant and prejudicial. My former position in government does not transform a lawful settlement communication into misconduct.

Sustained.

 

[Muggy21]

Objection

OBJECTION - Relevance/Breach of Procedure

The support for the registration of the party is unaffected by the conduct of this court case. The Plaintiff claims that because this lawsuit touches on the Reform Redmont Party, the registration process must be stayed. The Plaintiff’s assertion that 'defamatory statements' may impact registration is speculative.

I'd also offer that this case is certainly not out of control nor is that relevant to the conduct of the registration process.

A writ of mandamus cannot be ordered for a private matter, its to compel where a statutory duty has not been carried out.

Requires the government, a government agency, corporation, or subordinate court to do some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do, and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty. This is generally used to resolve government disputes.

Sustained

 

[Muggy21]

The plaintfif would also like to file the following motion:

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

The plaintiff requests from the court a writ of mandamus to the Department of State (herby referred to as DOS), to pause the ten-day timer for the Reform Redmont Party’s (herby referred to as Reform Party) registration until all legal proceedings are over.

1. What was supposed to be a quick case of definition filled by Plaintiff against the defendant has quickly spiraled out of control, and is taking longer than the ten-day registration timer.
2. Due to the Reform Redmont Party registration being the center of this case, and as it seems the case will take longer than ten days, it is of vital importance for the registration timer to be stopped.
3. A writ of Mandamus will force the DOS to stop the registration timer and ensure that the case continues as usual.
4. It is under the plaintiffs' belief that the defamatory statements in the case hurt the Reform Party's fair chance for registration.
5. In accordance with the Electoral Act section 11, subsection 3: “Electoral Officers are charged with serving as the stewards of free and fair elections.” It is under the plaintiffs' belief that stopping the timer and (if possible) preventing anyone from commenting on the forum post for the party’s registration, until the case is over, will help maintain a “free and fair election”.

Denied.

 

[ThePuffer]

D-001

Proof of ownership of 'RRP' as a commercial registration of the Redmont Reform Party.

Registered some time ago, but unable to determine date.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE
The issue presented in the following court case is not wether there ever exsisted an entity under the name of the Redmont Reforkm Party, but rather if defendants de-registartion of said party, allows him to keep the trademark for the party name. The exsistance of the Redmont Reform Party is one that is agreed upon by both plaintiff and defendant, so there is no need presenting such evidence.
[\objection]

 

[End]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE
The issue presented in the following court case is not wether there ever exsisted an entity under the name of the Redmont Reforkm Party, but rather if defendants de-registartion of said party, allows him to keep the trademark for the party name. The exsistance of the Redmont Reform Party is one that is agreed upon by both plaintiff and defendant, so there is no need presenting such evidence.
[\objection]

Due to the wording of trademark law, I’d off that the evidence of commercial ownership as well as party ownership is relevant.

 

[ThePuffer]

Objection

Relevance

The Merriam Webster Dictionary definition is irrelevant, as the No More Defamation Act defines defamation in Redmont Law.

Act of Congress Thread 'No More Defamation Act'

Jun 20, 2024

House Vote: 4-2-2
Senate Vote: 2-1-0

A
BILL
To

Protect citizens from Defamation

The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law:

1 - Short Title and Enactment

(1) This Act may be cited as the 'No More Defamation Act.'

(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage.

(3) This Act has been authored by Speaker Unitymaster.

(4) This Act has been co-sponsored by Senator...

• Unitymaster
• Replies: 2
• Forum: Administrative Law

• 

The defendant is correct of the exsistance of such law, however, it should be noted that the definitions between the law and the English language, are almost indistinguishable, but for the sake of the court, the plaintiff would like to rephrase his brief to to include the definition of defamation as is underlined in the law:
"Defamation is a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party's reputation. The tort of defamation includes both libel and slander."

 

[ThePuffer]

Due to the wording of trademark law, I’d off that the evidence of commercial ownership as well as party ownership is relevant.

Your honor, may I respond?

 

[Muggy21]

Your honor, may I respond?

No.

Responses to responses are not permitted.

 

[Muggy21]

The Court is in recess for an Order regarding Defendant's motion to dismiss.

All deadlines are still tolled.

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
ThePufferOffical v. xEndeavour [2025] DCR 69

Order of Dismissal and additional remarks
After consideration of Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and on the additional filings from Plaintiff, the Court sees no other relief than immediate dismissal in favor of the Defendant.

Notes from the Bench:

The Court appreciates the passion of Plaintiff's counsel and looks forward to his future advocacy in the Courts. Not every filing results in a win; the Court wishes to assure new lawyers to carry on after adversity.

To xEndeavour, the Court admonishes you. You hold titles that new players see and immediately associate with Government action. When a Secretary replies to a party registration, that undeniably may have a chilling effect on political participation. The Court advises you to proceed with caution, especially when doing so may inhibit new player participation.


The Court’s Order


There are several concerns with the filing at hand, the Court will list them

1. Standing: The Intellectual Property Act modifies common law, as the Court attempted to explore earlier in its broadened interpretation of the Complaint. In order for a trademark claim to be sustained, a Cease and Desist letter is required to be submitted under Section 7 of the IPA; furthermore, a reasonable amount of time is impossible in this case as the Plaintiff filed the action 90 minutes after the nexus. The Court interprets failure to comply with Section 7 as fatal to Plaintiff’s trademark claims. The Court does not restrict its analysis of the alleged damages to explicit provisions under the IPA and recognizes that other cognizable claims exist under common law with reference to intellectual property, nonetheless Section 7 is mandatory regardless of these other supposed theories
   
   
   
2. Status of Political Party Registration: The Department of State is not the decider of the existence of a political party in Redmont. The Executive Standards Act does not confer on the Department the unfettered ability to dissolve or otherwise affect the legal existence of a political party. To the Court’s knowledge, registration permits recognition of parties for purposes of elections and other public forum uses. To my knowledge, End’s political party has existed, has been registered, and subsequently deregistered. The Court does not see the deregistration as proof of its dissolution nor as proof of trademark relinquishment.
   
   
3. Lack of Qualification: The Court submitted an OSC (#3) on a concern that ThePufferOffical did not possess the necessary legal qualification to represent a party in Court. The Court wished for clarification that the Plaintiff was filing an action on his own behalf, instead the Plaintiff responded with proof that he obtained a Solicitor’s license. Unfortunately, this wasn’t the Court’s concern; The Court was inquiring as to who was appearing before the Court, ThePufferOffical in a personal capacity or that of the “Reform Party.” Plaintiff responded “The Reform Party, which is chairmend by me.” Pro se parties can't file actions before Courts on behalf of organizations.
   
   
4. Imposition of Sanctions: This lawsuit was filed prematurely and was devoid of standing due to the failure to comply with Section 7 of the IPA. Given the unnecessary burden placed on the Defendant by responding to such a suit, the Court imposes sanctions payable by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

Thus, the Court orders the following:

1. A referral shall be made to the Department of Justice for consideration of Legal Qualification Fraud against ThePufferOffical.
2. No award for Legal Fees payable to xEndeavour.
3. A sanction of $500.00 payable to xEndeavour.

Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.
This case is dismissed with prejudice.


The Court thanks all parties for its time.

 

[Muggy21]

The Court made an oopsie when transferring its order. I originally wrote "Government" and "Secretary" but wrote Staff and Owner instead.

Oops, the changes have been underlined.