Lawsuit: Adjourned AlienBloom20204 v NetPex

[P. Hunter]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 04/17/2024

AlienBloom20204
Attorney - Poemhunter

v.

NetPex
Defendant

I. Description of Case
The Plaintiff brings forth the following causes of action and alleges the following against the Defendant: My client Alienbloom20204 was in-game making an advertisement for his new and upcoming business Crayola. After publishing an in-game ad with his company slogan, within seconds of publishing it the defendant released an almost direct copy of his advertisement. This can be seen in Evidence 1. This is a direct infringement to my clients slogan rights under the Copyrigth a protections act.

II. Parties

1. Alienbloom20204
2. Poemhunter
3. Netpext

III. Sequence of Events

1. My client Alienbloom20204 makes an advertisement in game for his new and upcoming bsuiness.
2. Merely seconds later Netpex releases an advertisement in game with mimic wording with few wrod adjustments

IV. Claims for Relief

1. Under the copyrights protection act, Section 4 (1) All citizens shall be entitled to copyright protections on all their creative works which include but are not limited to artwork, building design, writings, infographics, logos & slogans, and videos.

V. Damages

1. 1,000 Krunas fine for copyright
2. 500 krunas for personal damages
3. 2,000 krunas for legal fees

Evidence:
1: Showing both parties within the game
2: Each red highlighted word is what is changed or slightly altered within the ad. Everything else is a direct copy.

In advancing this form to the court, you acknowledge and concur with the rules of court which highlight the importance of honesty at all times. Moreover, you understand the punishments for breaking these rules and/or committing perjury and deception in the court.

 

[MegaMinerM]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
Writ of Summons

Good Afternoon,

@NetPex is hereby summoned to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Stratham, and must appear in the court in the following 48 hours starting at the time of this summons sending. If the defendant fails to adhere to the conditions of the summons hereby set, the court will move forward with a default judgement.

 

[Cherub54321]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
MOTION TO DISMISS
Date: 04/18/24
AlienBloom20204
Attorney - Poemhunter

v.

Netpex
Cherub54321 - Emergency Lawyer @Wright & CO. Law Office

I. Motion To Dismiss
The Defendant motions to dismiss the case, respectfully based off the following:
1. From the Cambridge English Dictionary, the definition of a slogan is a "short easily remembered phrase, especially one used to advertise an idea or a product". Additionally, a slogan is usually repeated in order to have the greatest effect on it's audience. What the plaintiff is calling a slogan neither matches the Dictionary definition, nor can we find any evidence of it being repeated as you would expect it to be, if it were indeed their slogan.
2. Using a AI detector, we can see that it is likely that this advertisement was written by an AI (In depth analysis attached below). This would mean that it is not the plaintiff's creative work and so is exempt from the Copyright Protections Act, as stated in Section 4 (1) All citizens shall be entitled to copyright protections on all their creative works.

In advancing this form to the court, you acknowledge and concur with the rules of court which highlight the importance of honesty at all times. Moreover, you understand the punishments for breaking these rules and/or committing perjury and deception in the court.

 

[P. Hunter]

Your Honour,

I request adequate time to make a response to the Motion to Dismiss, due to irl work schedule i might not have time within the normal time frame to respond.

 

[MegaMinerM]

You have a 72 hours to post a response.

 

[MegaMinerM]

I would also like to make all parties aware that this case has been moved to the district court.

 

[P. Hunter]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Response to Motion to Dismiss
Date: 04/19/2024

AlienBloom20204
Poemhunter - Representing

v.

NetPex
Cherub54321 - Representing

1. Response to the Motion to Dismiss

Regarding point 1 made by the defendants council; the definition of the slogan is "a short easily remembered phrase especially one used to advertise an idea or product." end quote. The plaintiff does not dispute this in the slightest however the following remarks we take issue with.

"Additionally, a slogan is usually repeated in order to have the greatest effect on its audience. What the plaintiff is calling a slogan neither matches the Dictionary definition," To quote the defendant and examine the context of what is being alleged, there is not a single remark made in the Cambridge English Dictionary to the amount of times a phrase would need to be repeated in order to constitute as a slogan.

When looking in the same dictionary for the definition of the word "Phrase" it is defined as "a group of words that are often used together and have a particular meaning" The key word to take here is "Often" as the un-definitive language used to reference what is a phrase allows access to peoples ability to use such words in the making of such a statement without the prior power of having the ability to be grouped together, example "still, to coin a phrase," this timeless example shows the exact point i make in the making of any phrase that then can be furthermore established.

Additionally and once again using the same dictionary the definition of advertisement is as follows: "a picture, short film, song etc. that tries to persuade people to buy a product or service." This gives clear lee way in the use and access of using method not limited to what has been mentioned within the quote to advertise in a manner using slogans/phrases to achieve such goals for a business.

In summary, the advertisement used by my client does in fact meet the definitions for what is being alleged by the defence and within all the definitions there is no backing to say to be a slogan it must have a substantial historical uses by the plaintiff in this case.

Regarding point 2 made by the defendants council; The defence comments on the "creative works" of my client when it comes to the wording of the advertisement, stating this would disqualify my client from such protection. Meaning since such words and the advertisement was not of his own words or in part not of his own and of a different origin then we have two occurring situations from what could be a dangerous precedent to set.

• The first being that any word/s, artwork, building design, writings, infographics, logos & slogans, and videos and much more that is not of any person on stratham own creation will automatically forfeit there rights under this bill. Companies/business or other things with irl names or names from other sources like shows, movies etc with example of current such ones like Tesla, Tesco, Quantas and many more would be unable to have such protection from this act. Thus it would spring a whirlwind of potential mass production of copyright goods without legal repercussions. This is horrendously damaging to our legal system, to business and to the players who would be affected but such a decision.

• The second being that we are completely taking away the essence of this law. This law is there to safeguard players when making business and starting up shops and services. The essence of this bill is not to be combatant of the definitions of particular words but instead provide equal opportunity and fairness within businesscraft for using and providing services and having the freedom from being taken advantage off and having the protections on the in game work put into the server and that is what we should be looking at. The wording and definitions of what we have in our laws.

 

[MegaMinerM]

The motion to dismiss is overruled. The defense has 48 hours to put forward a response.

 

[P. Hunter]

Your honour,

The Defence and ourselves have come to a settlement agreement, terms listed below;

- The defendant pleads guilty to copyright
- 1,000 krunas for the copyright
- 500 krunas for personal damages
- 1,000 krunas for legal fees

 

[MegaMinerM]

Good Morning,

I ask the Justice Minister @SpaceSlayer_ to carry this out.

That is all,
Thank you
Court Adjourned