Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA786467
`
`Filing date:
`
`12/01/2016
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91214673
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's e-mail
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Defendant
`Future Publishing Limited
`
`ROBERT N PHILLIPS
`REED SMITH LLP
`101 SECOND STREET, SUITE 1800
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
`UNITED STATES
`IPDocket-CHI@reedsmith.com, robphillips@reedsmith.com, nbor-
`ders@reedsmith.com, dkalahele@reedsmith.com
`
`Response to Board Order/Inquiry
`
`Robert N. Phillips
`
`robphillips@reedsmith.com, kkershner@reedsmith.com, dkala-
`hele@reedsmith.com
`
`/Robert N. Phillips/
`
`12/01/2016
`
`2016.12.01 Future Response to Nov 1 Board Order on Preclusion.pdf(18118
`bytes )
`2016.12.01 Declaration of R Phillips ISO Future Response to Nov 1 Board Order
`with Exh.pdf(1195768 bytes )
`Signed Declaration of TEL with Exhibits 161201.pdf(2813816 bytes )
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`In the Matter of Application Serial Nos. 85/153,981 and 85/153,958
`
`Published in the Official Gazette on October 1, 2013
`
`Marks: EDGE and EDGE (Stylized)
`
`Opposition No. 91214673
`
`
`
`-------------------------------------------------------
`
`EDGE GAMES, INC.
`
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`-against-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FUTURE PUBLISHING LIMITED
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`-------------------------------------------------------
`
`Box TTAB
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`P.O. Box 1451
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`
`
`FUTURE PUBLISHING’S RESPONSE TO NOVEMBER 1, 2016 BOARD ORDER ON
`PRECLUSIVE EFFECT OF UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
`
`
`Introduction
`
`On November 1, 2016, the Board ordered that the parties further brief the issue of
`
`whether the July 7, 2011 decision of Mrs. Justice Proudman of the UK High Court (Case No.
`
`HC09CO2265) (the “Decision”) has any preclusive effect on this proceeding. Applicant Future
`
`Publishing Limited (“Future”) respectfully submits that the Decision is preclusive for the
`
`following reasons.
`
`Argument
`
`A foreign judgment should be recognized as preclusive in U.S. proceedings when the
`
`principles of comity are satisfied. Alfadda v. Fenn, 966 F. Supp. 1317 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). Those
`
`
`
`

`
`principles are clearly satisfied here.
`
`Under the doctrine of comity, foreign judgments are recognized where the proceedings
`
`giving rise to that judgment: (i) were upon appropriate notice; (ii) presented the opportunity for a
`
`full and fair presentation of evidence; (iii) were before a foreign court of competent jurisdiction,
`
`which operates in a legal system likely to provide for the impartial administration of justice in
`
`disputes between the citizens of that foreign nation and other nations; and (iv) do not prejudice
`
`the litigants’ rights as U.S. citizens or otherwise contravene U.S. public policy. Hilton v. Guyot,
`
`159 U.S. 113, 202-203 (1895). The judiciary of the United Kingdom is clearly a respected body,
`
`and a UK court decision should be recognized so long as it doesn’t offend a strong U.S. policy.
`
`See United States v. Buruji Kashamu, 656 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir. 2011). Indeed, by its motion
`
`to suspend filed November 16, 2016, Opposer concedes that a decision of a court in the UK can
`
`have a preclusive effect on this proceeding. Moreover, a U.S. court has already recognized the
`
`Decision. On August 8, 2011 Future filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court to enforce
`
`the monetary award in the Decision against Opposer, and on December 26, 2014, that Court
`
`entered judgment in the amount of $518,748.79 against Opposer based on the Decision.
`
`(Declaration of Robert N. Phillips in Support of Future’s Response to November 1, 2016 Board
`
`Order, ¶2-3).
`
`Here, the Decision was rendered by the High Court of the United Kingdom after months
`
`of careful and considered proceedings. (Declaration of Thomas Edward Lingard (“Lingard
`
`Decl.”) at ¶4; Dkt. 68, Exhs. B, C). Prior to issuing the Decision, Justice Proudman issued an
`
`Approved Judgment on June 13, 2011 (the “Approved Judgment”), which lays out the history
`
`and rationale behind the Decision. The cover page to the Approved Judgment of Justice
`
`Proudman notes nine days of hearings and two additional rounds of written submissions by the
`
`parties: “Hearing dates: 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, December 2010, 12 January, 16 February, 2
`
`March 2011 (and further written submissions 9 and 11 March 2011).” (Dkt. 68, Exh. C at page
`
`1). In fact, the length of trial substantially exceeded the original five day estimate. Justice
`
`Proudman gave the parties eleven opportunities to be heard before the UK High Court, whose
`
`2
`
`

`
`reputation is unquestionable. Further, there is no U.S. public policy that would be offended
`
`where the UK High Court has carefully ruled upon the termination of a UK contract. The
`
`Decision is thus entitled to recognition under the principles of comity and respect for foreign
`
`judgments.
`
`Once the judgment is correctly recognized by the Board, it easily follows that it has
`
`preclusive effect on the issues to be resolved. See Alfadda, 966 F. Supp. at 1326. U.S. federal
`
`law normally applies in deciding the preclusive effect of foreign judgments. Id; see also Hurst v.
`
`Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 474 F. Supp. 2d 19, 32–33 (D.D.C. 2007). Here, the
`
`Decision is entitled to preclusive effect under the principles of issue preclusion, or collateral
`
`estoppel, which “precludes relitigation of issues actually litigated and necessary to the outcome
`
`of the first action.” See Alfadda, 966 F. Supp. at 1325 n.8. Under federal law, four elements
`
`must be met for issue preclusion to apply: (1) the issues of both proceedings must be identical,
`
`(2) the relevant issues were actually litigated and decided in the prior proceeding, (3) there must
`
`have been “full and fair opportunity” for the litigation of the issues in the prior proceeding, and
`
`(4) the issues were necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the merits. Central
`
`Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Empresa Naviera Santa S.A., 56 F.3d 359, 368 (2d Cir. 1995).
`
`All four elements are met here. As to identicality, the Decision squarely addressed the
`
`issue of whether the 2004 Concurrent Trading Agreement (“CTA”) had been terminated, stating,
`
`“It is hereby declared that the Concurrent Trading Agreement (as defined in Annex 1 hereto)
`
`terminated with effect from 20 August 2010.” (Lingard Decl., ¶5; Dkt. 68, Exh. B, ¶6).
`
`Termination of the CTA is exactly the issue Future has argued in its Reply in support of its
`
`Motion for Relief from Final Judgment. (Dkt. 55 at p. 2). Opposer has attempted to assign itself
`
`Future’s mark based on a false “power of attorney” that it allegedly held under the CTA.
`
`However, the CTA had been terminated as of August 2010, thus revoking any alleged Power of
`
`Attorney allegedly held based on that Agreement. The issue addressed by the Decision is
`
`identical to that before the Board – whether the CTA had been terminated and thus cannot be a
`
`basis for Opposer’s purported “Power of Attorney” which resulted in him fraudulently assigning
`
`3
`
`

`
`Edge’s marks to himself.
`
`As to whether the issues were actually litigated in the UK proceeding, Future points to
`
`the lengthy history laid out by Justice Proudman in the Approved Judgment, including Opposer’s
`
`1996 suit against Future, the creation of the CTA, Opposer’s repeated and fundamental breaches
`
`of the CTA, and the resulting termination of the CTA. (Dkt. 68, Exh. B, ¶39-70). Each party
`
`provided substantial testimony and evidence surrounding these issues, and the Decision
`
`considered the relevant evidence and determined that the CTA had been fundamentally breached
`
`and then terminated. Id. These isues were actually litigated prior to the issuance of the Decision.
`
`Opposer also clearly had a “full and fair opportunity” to litigate the issues in the prior
`
`proceeding, and took advantage of that opportunity. (Lingard Decl., ¶11, 22)
`
`Finally, the finding that the CTA was terminated wasn’t just necessary to the judgment, it
`
`was the judgment, and all appeals were exhausted and the judgement was upheld. Lingard Decl.,
`
`¶6-11, 22; Dkt. 68, Exh. B, ¶6. As such, the Decision has preclusive effect under the doctrine of
`
`collateral estoppel and should be given full preclusive effect in this proceeding before the Board.
`
`
`
`Opposer sought to appeal the Decision in the UK and was denied by Lord Justice
`
`Lewison, whose order was “a final Order and that domestic appeal rights have been exhausted.”
`
`Lingard Decl., ¶6-8. The Decision is thus final in the UK, and the recently filed UK action has
`
`no prospect of success. See Lingard Decl., ¶21-22.
`
`Moreover, in light of the preclusive effect of the Decision, Opposer’s motion to suspend
`
`is moot. See Lingard Decl., ¶21-22 (explaining that UK action is abuse of process, has already
`
`been conclusively determined and is barred by estoppel, and has no prospect of success).
`
`Suspension is therefore not warranted.
`
`Conclusion
`
`
`
`In sum, Opposer fraudulently created “powers of attorney” and “assigned” Future’s
`
`marks to itself, in an effort to thwart Future’s intentional relinquishments (which were intended
`
`to put an end to Opposer’s vexatious conduct before this tribunal) . When Future objected to
`
`these fraudulent “powers of attorney” and “assignments,” Opposer claimed it had the right to
`
`4
`
`

`
`create and sign the documents based on the CTA, a contract which has been found by a UK court
`
`to have been terminated in 2010. Therefore, the Board should rule that 1) the Decision has
`
`preclusive effect, 2) the “powers of attorney” and “assignments” are fraudulent and void, 5)
`
`Future’s marks are abandoned/surrendered, and 6) that Opposer be sanctioned for its repeated
`
`perjury and fraud on this tribunal.
`
`
`Dated: December 1, 2016
`
`
`
`/s/ Robert N. Phillips
`Robert N. Phillips
`Reed Smith LLP
`10 Second Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Attorneys for Applicant
`Future Publishing Limited
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing FUTURE PUBLISHING’S RESPONSE
`
`TO BOARD ORDER ON PRECLUSIVE EFFECT OF UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT was
`
`served on Opposer via first class mail on December 1, 2016.
`
`
`Dr. Tim Langdell
`Edge Games, Inc.
`530 South Lake Avenue, Suite 171
`Pasadena, California 91101
`Telephone: (626) 449-4334
`Facsimile: (626) 844-4334
`Email: tim@edgegames.com
`
`/s/ Linda Pringle
`Linda Pringle
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`In the Matter of Application Serial Nos. 85/153,981 and 85/153,958
`
`Published in the Official Gazette on October 1, 2013
`
`Marks: EDGE and EDGE (Stylized)
`
`Opposition No. 91214673
`
`
`
`-------------------------------------------------------
`
`EDGE GAMES, INC.
`
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`-against-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FUTURE PUBLISHING LIMITED
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`-------------------------------------------------------
`
`Box TTAB
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`P.O. Box 1451
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT N. PHILLIPS IN SUPPORT OF
`FUTURE’S RESPONSE TO NOVEMBER 1, 2016 BOARD ORDER ON
`PRECLUSIVE EFFECT OF UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
`
`I, Robert N. Phillips, declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of California and a partner
`
`of Reed Smith LLP, attorneys of record for Applicant Future Publishing Limited (“Future”). The
`
`matters set forth in this declaration are based upon my personal knowledge, except where
`
`otherwise indicated, and if called as a witness I could and would testify competently thereto.
`
`2.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the complaint filed by
`
`Future against Opposer in Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. GC047963, on or about August
`
`8, 2011.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`3.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the amended judgment
`
`issued by the Los Angeles Superior Court in Case No. GC047963 on or about December 26,
`
`2014.
`
`4.
`
`For the Board’s convenience, attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct
`
`copy of the decision Alfadda v. Fenn, 966 F. Supp. 1317 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), with relevant sections
`
`of the opinion highlighted.
`
` declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
`
` I
`
`foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 1, 2016, at San Francisco, California.
`
`By:
`
`
`/s/ Robert N. Phillips
`Robert N. Phillips
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing DECLARATION OF ROBERT N.
`
`PHILLIPS IN SUPPORT OF FUTURE’S RESPONSE TO NOVEMBER 1, 2016 BOARD
`
`ORDER ON PRECLUSIVE EFFECT OF UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT was served on
`
`Opposer via First Class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid on December 1, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Tim Landell
`Edge Games, Inc.
`530 South Lake Avenue, Suite 171
`Pasadena, CA 91101
`Phone: (626)449-4334
`Fax: (626) 844-4334
`Email: tim@edgegames.com
`
`
`
`/s/ Linda Pringle
`Linda Pringle
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Reserved for Clark‘: File Starry
`SUPERIOR coijnr OF CALIFORNIA
`
`COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
`couamouse ADDRESS:
`
`
`
`300 EAST WALNUT STREET, PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT.‘
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASENUMB '
`
`‘
`
`sgoaveea
`
`NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
`
`TO THE PLAlNT|FF(S)/ATTORNEY(S) FOR PLA|NT|FF(S) OF RECORD:
`
`You are ordered to serve this notice of hearing on all partieslattomeys of record forthwith. and meet and confer with all
`parties/attorneys of record about the matters to be discussed no later than 30 days before the Case Management Conference.
`
`Your Case Management Conference has been scheduled at the courthouse address shown above on:
`
`NEP-JAN A. PLUIH
`
`
`
`R-C. EDWARD SIMPSON }
`
`Dept.:
`Time:8:30 a.m.
`NES-JOSEPH F. DE
`
`
`NEP
`
`NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: THE SETTING OF THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DOES NOT EXEMPT THE
`DEFENDANT FROM FILING A RESPONSIVE PLEADING AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
`
`Pursuant to California Rules of Court. rules 3.720-3.730, a completed Case Management Statement (Judicial Council form if
`CM-110) must be filed at least 15 calendar days prior to the Case Management Conterence. The Case Management Statement
`may be filed jointly by all partieslattorneys of record or individually by each partylattomey of record. You must be familiar with the
`case and be fully prepared to participate effectively in the Case Management Conference.
`
`At the Case. Management Conference. the Court may make pretrial orders including the following, but not limited to. an order
`establishing a‘disoovery schedule; an order referring the case to Altematlve Dispute Resolution (ADR): an order reclassilying the
`case; an order setting subsequent conference and the trial date; or other orders to achieve the goals of the Trial Court Delay
`Reduction Act (Gov. Code. § 68600 et seq.)
`
`Notice is hereby given that if you do not file the Case Management Statement or appear and effectively participate at the Case
`Management Conference, the Court may impose sanctions. pursuant to LASC Local Rule 7.13, Code of Civil Procedure
`sections 177.5. 575.2. 583.150. 583.360 and 583.410. Government Code section 68608. subdivision (b). agd California Rules of
`Court. rule 2.2 el seq.
`_
`
`, l
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`. the below named Executive Officerlclerk of the above—entitled court, do hereby certify that I am not a party to the cause
`herein. and that on this date I sewed the Notice of Case Management Conference upon each party or counsel named below:
`
`, California, one copy of the original
`[I by depositing in the United States mail at the courthouse in
`ii d herein in a separate sealed envelope to each address as shown below with the postage thereon fully prepaid.
`
`by personally giving the party notice upon filing of the complaint.
`
`§\\
`tax
`
`‘I’
`
`Dated:
`
`v
`lAClV 132 (Rev. 0%?)
`utsc Approved 1o-oa
`
`JOHN A. CLARKE, Executive/Officer Clerk
`
`NOTICE OF
`CASE MANAGEMENT CONFEREN CE
`
`By
`
`4:9
`0
`0% Clerk
`/aifiulesofcourt. rules 3.7203130
`use Local Rules. Chapter Seven
`
`'®\\
`
`5*
`
`‘B
`Dated: _
`""" $
`
`-
`
`MARY THORNTON HOUSE
`Judlclal Officer
`
`

`
`5”“‘"°°
`(sor.o PARA uso DELA corms)
`‘°" °°"'"”“" °”"
`1
`V
`
`
`
`SUMMONS
`{ClTA CION JUDICIAL)
`NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: THE EDGE INTERACTIVE MEDIA, |NC.;
`(AVISO AL DEMANDADO): EDGE GAMES, lNC., TIMOTHY LANGDELL;
`DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
`
`YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: FUTURE PUBLISHING
`(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): LIMITED
`
`
`
` NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information
`below.
`
`You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy
`
`
`served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your
`case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts
`Online Self-Help Center (www.courlinfo.ca.gov/sellhelp). your county law library. or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee. ask
`
`
`the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time. you may lose the case by default. and your wages, money. and property
`
`
`
`
`may be taken without further warning from the court.
`There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. if you do not know an attorney. you may want to call an attorney
`
`
`referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate
`
`
`these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcaliforniaorg). the California Courts Online Self-Help Center
`
`
`(www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp). or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and
`costs on any settlement or arbitration award of 510.000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
`
`
`;AVl$O! Lo hen demandado. Si no rosponde denim de 30 dies. la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informacion a
`continuacion
`
`
`Trene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después do que le entreguen esla citacion y papeles legales para presentar una respuesla por escn'lo en esta
`
`
`corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta a una llamada lelefdnica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito liene que esfar
`
`
`en formalo legal correclo si desea que pmcesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un lormulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta.
`Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas informacion en el Centre de Ayuda do Ias Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la
`
`
`biblioteca de leyes de su condado 0 en la corte que le quede ma's cerca. Si no puede pagar Ia cuota do presenlacion, pida at secretario de la corle
`
`
`que is do un Ionnulario de exencidn de page de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a liempo, puede perder el caso por incumpfimiento y la corte le
`
`podra quitar su sueldo, dinoro y bienes sin mas advertencia.
`
`Hay otros requisilos legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de
`remislon a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisites para obtener servicios Iegales gratuitos de un
`
`
`programa de servicios legalos sin fines de Iucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services,
`(www.Iawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centre de Ayuda de Ias Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) o poniéndose en conlacto con la corte 0 el
`
`
`calegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte liene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y Ios costos exenlos por imponer un gravamen sabre
`
`
`cualquier recuperacion do 3 10,000 6 mas de valor recibida medianle un acuerdo o una concesion de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. liene que
`pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso.
` CASE NUMBER’
`e name an a ress o t e cou is:
`
`(Numoro dol Case).
`I;
`
`(El nombre y direccion de la corle es):
`£1
`LL?
`47')
`(A)
`('7 Z 4-‘
`Los Anesles Superior Court
`300 E.
`alnut St.
`
`
`
`Pasadena, CA 91101
`The name, address. and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney. or plaintiff without an attorney, is:
`(El nombre, la direccién y el numero de teléfono del abogado del demandante, 0 del demandanle que no tiene abogado, es):
`JOHN D. GUERRINI 190972)
`626-229-9611
`626-229-9615
`THE GUERRINI LA
`FIRM
`wt
`i:%:b%ir.E2§ir.EEitSU'TE
`4
`Clerk, by
`DATE:
`I
`‘L
`' &Q!
`
`Secretario
`3
`Fecha
`“B
`(For proof of service of this summons. use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).)
`(Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el fonnulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)). %
`NOTICE To THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
`—1.—E—j-as-err-individual-defendant+—————:—
`2.
`I
`I as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):
`
`, Deputy
`
`‘
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3. [:3 on behalf of (specify):
`
`under:
`
`Form Adoplod tor Mandatory uso
`Judicial Council of California
`SUM-100 [Nov July 1. 2009]
`
`4.
`
`I
`
`[:] CCP 416.60 (minor)
`CCP 416.10 (corporation)
`E] CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
`CI CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation)
`[:1 CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) C:] CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
`[:] other (specify):
`I by personal deliver_y on (date):
`SUM
`
`so
`(311513?
`
`Page 1 or 1
`' ,
`~
`(’°d° °' C‘‘’" "'°°°d“‘° 55 M220‘ '55
`
`

`
`1
`
`THE GUERRINI LAW FIRM
`John D. Guerrini (#190972)
`750 East Green Street - Suite 200
`Pasadena, CA 91101
`tel. 626-229-9611
`fax. 626-229-9615
`email. guerrini@guerrinilaw.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiff FUTURE PUBLISHING LIMITED
`[10697]
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, NORTHEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
`
`(Pasadena Courthouse - Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction)
`
`CASENQ_
`
`IiCIf5+7‘3E3
`
`COMPLAINT UNDER THE
`UNIFORM FOREIGN MONEY-
`JUDGMENTS RECOGNITION ACT
`TO ESTABLISH DOMESTIC
`JUDGMENT BASED UPON FINAL
`JUDGMENT FROM THE HIGH
`COURT OF JUSTICE CANCERY
`DIVISION, ENGLAND
`
`[CCP 17131
`
`DEMAND: $555,994.06
`
`) ) I ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`Plaintiff FUTURE PUBLISHING LIMITED (“Plaintiff”) alleges the following
`
`causes of action against THE EDGE INTERACTIVE MEDIA, |NC.; EDGE GAMES,
`
`lNC., TIMOTHY LANGDELL (“Defendant"), an individual; and DOES 1 through 100,
`
`inclusive (collectively, the "Defendants"), as follows:
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff is, and at all times relevant was, a business entity formed,
`
`organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the nation of England.
`
`COMPLAINT TO ESTABLISH DOMESTIC JUDGMENT BASED
`UPON THE UNIFORM FOREIGN MONEY-JUDGMENTS RECOGNITION ACT
`
`-1-
`
`14
`
`FUTURE PUBLISHING LIMITED,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`VS.
`
`THE EDGE INTERACTIVE MEDIA, INC.;
`EDGE GAMES, lNC., TIMOTHY
`LANGDELL; DOES 1 through 100,
`inclusive,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`2.
`
`Defendants are currently domiciled in the above-referenced Judicial
`
`District.
`
`3.
`
`On or about July 7, 2011, a judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff
`
`and against Defendants. The original sealed and certified judgment is attached hereto
`
`as Exhibit 1, and by this reference, every word and term therein is incorporated herein.
`
`4.
`
`As of the date that this Complaint is prepared. the monetary amounts in
`
`the foregoing judgment convert at the rate of 340,000 Pounds Sterling = 555,994.06
`
`United States Dollars (Exhibit 2).
`
`5.
`
`The foregoing judgment is final, has not been appealed with a stay
`
`granted,‘and the time in which to file an appeal has expired.
`
`6.
`
`Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP") section 1713 is known as the Uniform
`
`Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act.
`
`7.
`
`CCP §1713.2 provides that "[t]his chapter applies to any foreign
`
`judgment is final and conclusive and enforceable where rendered even though an
`
`appeal therefrom is pending or it is subject to appeal."
`
`8.
`
`CCP §1713.3 provides that "[e]xpect as provided in Section 1713.4, a
`
`foreign judgment meeting the requirements of Section 1713.2 is conclusive between
`
`the parties to the extent that it grants or denies recovery of a sum of money. The
`
`foreign judgment is enforceable in the same manner as the judgment of a sister state
`
`which is entitled to full faith and credit .
`
`.
`
`9.
`
`The court that entered the foregoing judgment sits in a country that
`
`provides impartial tribunals and procedures that are in comport with traditional notions
`
`of due process of law.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff is not aware of any of judgments which conflict with the
`
`foregoing judgment.
`
`11.
`
`CCP §1713.5 provides relevantly, "The foreign judgment shall not be
`
`refused recognition for lack of personal jurisdiction if .
`
`.
`
`. (6) the defendant operated a
`
`COMPLAINT TO ESTABLISH DOMESTIC JUDGMENT BASED
`
`UPON THE UNIFORM FOREIGN MONEY-JUDGMENTS RECOGNITION ACT
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`1 motor vehicle or airplane in the foreign state and the proceedings involved a cause of
`
`action arising out of such operation."
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays forjudgment in its favor and against Defendant
`
`as follows:
`
`1.
`
`.“.‘-'°."’
`
`For the total sum of $555,994.06;
`
`For post judgment interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum;
`
`For costs of suit herein;
`
`For such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper.
`
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`
`6 7 8 9
`
`O1
`
`INI LAW FIRM
`
`
`
`11 Dated: August 8, 2011
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`-3-
`
`COMPLAINT TO ESTABLISH DOMESTIC JUDGMENT BASED
`UPON THE UNIFORM FOREIGN MONEY-JUDGMENTS RECOGNITION ACT
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1
`
`

`
`CLAIM NO HC09 CO2265
`
`IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
`
`CHANCERY DIVISION
`
`The Honourable Mrs Justice Proudman
`
`7 July 2011
`
`'
`
`BETWEEN
`
`FUTURE PUBLISHING LIMITED
`
`Claimant
`
`and
`
`(1) THE EDGE INTERACTIVE MEDIA, INC
`(2) EDGE GAMES, INC
`. (3) DR TIMOTHY LANGDELL
`I.
`
`Defendants
`
`ORDER
`
`UPON the trial of this claim
`
`AND UPON judgment for the Claimant having been given on 13 June
`
`2011
`
`~ e- »
`
`AND UPON hearing Counsel for the Claimant and the Third Defendant
`
`in person
`
`

`
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`
`Injunction
`
`1
`
`The First and Second Defendants (whether acting through their
`
`officers,
`
`employees,
`
`agents or
`
`any of
`
`them or otherwise
`
`howsoever) and the Third Defendant (whether acting by himself or
`
`through his employees, agents or any of them or otherwise
`
`howsoever), must not do the following acts or any of them:
`
`(a)
`
`copy or issue to the public in the United Kingdom copies of
`the Claimant’s Logo (as the same is defined in Annex I to this
`
`Order) or any substantial part thereof without the licence of
`
`the Claimant;
`
`- (b) otherwise infringe the Claimant’s copyright in the Claimant’s
`
`Logo;
`
`(c) pass themselves off as being endorsed by or connected to the
`
`Claimant and/or its products or services.
`
`2
`
`Without prejudice to the generality of
`
`the
`
`foregoing,
`
`the
`
`Defendants must within 7 days of the date of this Order:
`
`(a) permanently remove any and all copies of the Claimant’s
`
`Logo from the following websites:
`
`(i),D
`
`(ii) www.edgegames.co.uk;
`
`(iii) www.ed e-mobile.com;
`
`

`
`(iv) www.cafepress.com/EDGEGAMES; and
`
`(v)
`
`any other websites within the Defendants’ custody or
`
`control;
`
`(b) permanently remove and/or not repeat the following statement
`
`from the website at www.edgegames.com:
`
`Future ’s use of the mark EDGE in relation to electronic
`
`publication versions of their EDGE Magazine is under
`
`license from Edge.
`
`(c) permanently remove and/or not repeat the following statement
`
`from the website at www.timlangdell.com:
`
`the EDGE brand is now known for many game related
`
`products and services, notably the UK top-selling games
`
`magazine EDGE...
`
`Revocation of trade marks
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`UK Registered Trade Marks 1562099A, 2147008A, 214'./0l3A,
`2147022A, 2l47035A and 2l47040A be revoked.
`
`Notice of the Order be given to the Registrar of Trade Marks by
`
`serving a copy of this Order upon the Registrar.
`
`Paragraphs 3 and 4 above shall be stayed for 21 days from the date
`of this Order and in the event that the First Defendant within that
`
`period makes an application for permission to appeal to the Court
`
`of Appeal in relation to revocation of trade marks or an application
`
`to the Court of Appeal for an extension of time for making the said
`
`3
`
`

`
`application for permission, paragraph 4 shall be further stayed until
`
`that application for permission to appeal and/or application for an
`
`extension of time and/or
`
`any subsequent appeal
`
`is
`
`finally
`
`determined.
`
`Declaration
`
`6
`
`It is hereby declared that the Concurrent Trading Agreement (as
`
`defined in Annex 1 hereto) terminated with effect from 20 August
`
`2010.
`
`Damages
`
`7
`
`The Defendants must pay to the Claimant:
`
`(a) damages for copyright infringement;-
`
`(b) damages for passing off; and
`
`(c) damages for breach of contract.
`
`8
`
`is entitled to an Inquiry as to the quantum of
`‘The Claimant
`damages payable pursuant to paragraph 7 above (including the
`question as
`to whether
`additional damages
`for
`copyright
`infringement should be payable) and has permission to apply for
`further directions relating to the said Inquiry.
`
`Contempt of Court
`
`9
`
`the
`The Claimant has permission to bring proceedings against
`Third Defendant for contempt of court by reason of the Third
`
`Defendant’s false statements in his witness statements dated 17
`
`September 2010 and 29 November 2010.
`4
`
`

`
`Costs
`
`10
`
`The Defendants shall pay to the Claimant its costs of this action on
`
`the indemnity basis, such costs to be subject to detailed assessment
`
`if not agreed.
`
`1 l
`
`The Defendants shall within 28 days of the date of this Order pay
`
`to the Claimant the sum of £340,000 on account of such costs.
`
`Interest
`
`12
`
`All sums found due and payable herein shall be subject to interest
`
`pursuant to Section 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981 or under the
`
`equitable jurisdiction of the Court.
`
`Defendants’ applications
`
`13
`
`The Defendants’ applications for a stay of execution of judgment,
`
`for contempt of court and
`permission to bring proceedings
`permission to appeal the judgment of l3 June and this Order are
`
`dismissed.
`
`

`
`ANNEX 1
`
`Defined terms used in the Order
`
`Concurrent Trading
`
`means the agreement between the Claimant and the First
`
`Agreement
`
`Defendant dated l5 October 2004.
`
`The Claimant’s Logo
`
`means the stylised logo version of the word “EDGE” as
`
`used by the Claimant
`
`in its Edge magazine (shown
`
`-EDGE
`
`

`
`CLAIM NO HC09 C02265
`
`IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
`CHANCERY DIVISION
`
`BETWEEN
`
`FUTURE PUBLISHING LIMITED
`
`Claimant
`
`and
`
`(1) THE EDGE INTERACTIVE MEDIA,
`INC
`(2) EDGE GAMES, INC
`(3)‘DR TIMOTHY LANGDELL
`
`Defendants
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`Ci-‘I3
`
`D’LM..,
`
`Stevens & Bolton LLP
`
`Wey House
`GUILDFORD
`GUI 4YD
`
`DX 2423 GUILDFORD 1
`
`Tel: 01483 302 264
`Fax: 01483 302 254
`
`Ref: DCW.EMO.FU0899.27
`
`Solicitors for the Claimant
`
`7
`
`

`
` Exhibit 2
`
`

`
`XE: (GBP/USD) British Found to US Dollar Rate
`
`l1ttp://www.xe.com/ucc/convert/?Amount=340000&From=GBP&T0=USD
`
`The World‘; Favorite currency Sire
`
`1
`
`Licensing v
`|
`Trading v
`Tools v
`Home
`Home > XE - Universal Cuterxzy Comerter > XE: (GBP/USD) British Pom: to us Dollar Rate
`
`Mobile v
`
`Lllte Our Site? v
`
`t
`:
`
`Help v
`
`English
`
`searui
`
`CURRENCY CONVERTER WIDGET
`Convener
`Rates
`News
`
`Info
`
`‘ M:
`g H I
`~”5"f‘“».«
`.._......1
`View than
`
`Midmarkelrates: 2011-03-08 16:00 UTC
`340,000.00 (38? = 555,994.06 use
`y
`.
`8nt1shPou'ct
`US Dollar
`1 can = 1.63528 use
`1 use = 0.611517 car
`
`"°"’ °°""°"'°“
`
`quick Links
`“"‘°"°“‘.'“'°‘
`Free email updates
`G '
`f
`N
`'3 °‘" '9‘ °°""° 9'
`Monitor This Rate
`Travel expense calculator
`
`Cheap Money Transfers. Click herel!
`
`Featured Products
`
`XE Damfeed
`Currency Rates
`tor your business D
`
`
`
`'
`
`
`Tools 8- Services
`
`Tradecurrencles
`Clicktlerel
`
`' ".""E ‘Zr?
`IE
`_»
`
`L
`1
`
`‘
`
`Mere XE Products
`
`Rates by Email
`5|-Ibififibt NOW )
`
`
`
`J
`
`Trading
`
`Currency Education
`
`Data 8. Tools
`
`Transfer Money >
`Get the best currency rates
`guaranteed with XE Trade. You'll
`save time and money on your
`currency transfers and toreign
`payments.
`
`Currency Encyclopedia >
`Learn about currency
`information including live rates,
`ix news. facts and services tor
`each world currency
`
`Use our Currency Data >
`Use the industry's most accurate
`rates to power your website.
`accounting package or expense
`mamgement soitware. Use the
`XE Dataieed.
`
`Trade Currency >
`intro to currency tra