Ep.265 w/ Paul Lesko "The Hobby Lawyer" "Interesting Cases"

SPEAKER 1: This is Sports Card Nation.

SPEAKER 2: What is up everybody? Welcome to episode 265. Sports Card Nation. Happy New Year. 2024 is upon us. I wish everybody a happy and healthy New Year for me. In 2023 it had its ups and downs. But, we made it through. Right. We're both, you listening and, and myself, we're still here and that's, that's half the battle, right there.

SPEAKER 2: So, again, Happy New Year as we approach, you know, the next, national here in, in seven months, in Cleveland. And, you know, probably in a few months you'll start hearing more of that talk ramp up. But, no real national talk today, we have a, a great guest returning, Mr Paul Lesco Hobby lawyer, the Hobby lawyer who's going to talk about some of the 40 cases, going on litigation wise and Hobby.

SPEAKER 2: We're not gonna talk all 40 but, some that are, interesting to him and, have, you know, ripple effects, on the Hobby and we always appreciate Paul making some time for the show and enlightening us. With his, you know, legal knowledge of these litigations. So without further ado, let's get this show started.

SPEAKER 3: Iron Sports Cards is your number one source for all your PS A and other grading submissions. Their elite status improves turnaround times. Heck, they even provide the card. Save their chat rooms, provide updates on all your submissions.

SPEAKER 3: They also offer wax options and single cards to cover all the bases. Check them out on Facebook at Iron Sports Cards Group or on the web at Irons Sports cards.com or even give them a call at 1877. Ironps A Rob's got you covered.

SPEAKER 2: Real happy to talk to my next guest on the sports card shop guest line. He was here back in August episode 246 to be exact and we spoke specifically about one case. And I promised him when we had him back, we would cover a little more ground and that's what we're gonna do, today. But without further ado, welcome back, Paul Lesco, the Hobby lawyer as he is such known. And, welcome back, Paul.

SPEAKER 4: Well, thanks for having me back on.

SPEAKER 2: Well, glad you came back. You know, last time, like I said, was, was August earlier this year.

SPEAKER 2: We really focused heavily on that, Fanatics, versus Panini or Panini Versus Fanatics. Case I, I will start there just kind of the update if, if there's anything to update, since August, what's a U?

SPEAKER 4: Yeah. Sure. So, this is the case where, and it's actually multiple cases. It's not just one case. It's, when you have big litigation like this, there's just lawsuits going back and forth. So, the lawsuit initially started with, Panini suing Fanatics, alleging that Fanatics had stolen 35 of their employees, improperly.

SPEAKER 4: Then, Fanatics later filed a Panini then filed another lawsuit against Fanatics alleging antitrust violations. That, Fanatics was creating an illegal monopoly in the Hobby to which Fanatics then fired back a lawsuit, saying that there was unfair competition between it and Panini where Panini had entered allegedly into, types of conversations about maybe assigning over all of their exclusive licenses to Fanatics.

SPEAKER 4: But Fanatics was saying that this was actually, you know, Panini wasn't doing this in good faith. We, you know, we Fanatics put a lot of money into these negotiations and it was all a waste of time and we lost money and we lost time and everything else.

SPEAKER 4: So it's big huge lawsuits. And then you also had a couple of, what I would call like follower on lawsuits where the WWE and the NFL Players Association, they had exclusives with, Panini and they allege that Panini was in breach and that they were going to, take the exclusive back and give the exclusive back to, oh, not back but give the exclusive to Fanatics.

SPEAKER 4: So, you know, last time we talked, we had all those you know, missiles of lawsuits, all flying at each other, all, you know, somewhat related. And since then, we, we have had actually a little bit of activity mainly in the side actions, the Panini versus WWE and the Panini versus the NFL P A.

SPEAKER 4: And both those actions, As much as we can tell, it looks like Panini did better than the WWE and then the NFL P A because in the WWE lawsuit, the WWE wanted the immediate end of the exclusive contract with Panini and they wanted money, they wanted Panini to pay money. So they basically wanted the, the, you know, Panini is done immediately stopped making cards. Fanatics will start making stuff.

SPEAKER 4: So that lawsuit went on for a little bit. There were a couple emergency hearings that were set and scheduled to go there that the WWE one of the judges say we win now and, and there, the judge said, hey, you know, right now, I don't see enough what's called irreparable harm happening because Panini says that they can still make cards, they're still ready to make cards.

SPEAKER 4: And you're not alleging that the card quality that they're making is bad. You're just basically alleging that this contract should be over for whatever reason. So that's something we'll address at the end of the lawsuit. But as for now, I will let that keep going. So that lawsuit settled. And we don't know the terms of it.

SPEAKER 4: So we're trying to figure out who won and there have been some indicators that maybe Panini won this because while we haven't seen too much more WWE product from Panini, I believe it was. This weekend, we saw that Al Snow was signing some cards, some Panini cards. He, he put out, I think, I don't know if it was him or somebody who took a picture and showed it. So that seems to say to me although we don't know what happened.

SPEAKER 4: But if the WWE was asking to shut down Panini and make no future cards and then the case settled confidentially. But now we're seeing Al Snow signing some cards that will be released. It seems to say to me that at a minimum, Panini may have won because maybe the status quo, at least for some time frame is still going to continue. Similarly in the NFL P A action.

SPEAKER 4: That one's in an arbitration. So we really don't know what's happening there. It's in secret. It's not in Federal Court where you can typically say, see everything that's happening.

SPEAKER 4: But there, the order, there was an order that was leaked that gave us two pieces of information. Number one, that, that judge was going to do the same thing as the WWE judge and say, hey, I'm not shutting down this product line while the lawsuits on go.

SPEAKER 4: So Panini, you can keep making NFL P A cards. But then also in that order, the arbitrator slash judge mentioned that the parties agreed that while this lawsuit was gonna continue, that Panini could continue to make NFL P A cards. So those matters. So the NFL P A matter is still going on. It's a secret. We don't know ultimately who's gonna win that one?

SPEAKER 4: WWE matter. We think Panini may have won one, that one because they're still making cards. And, you know, and those are interesting things to watch because there are allegations in the Fanatics in Panini lawsuits that, th those lawsuits are really focusing on those exclusives.

SPEAKER 4: So as these littler actions are decided, And so far it looks like Panini has been in the lead of those, they may ultimately influence the antitrust actions or the other actions too. And those actions, the Fanatics and Panini actions, those are moving slower right now.

SPEAKER 4: We're, basically in what's called the motion to dismiss stage where both sides are saying, hey, this, these lawsuits are, you know, worthless. You should get rid of them. You need to look at them and we probably won't get rulings from the courts in those until, you know, March April may, they don't move fast.

SPEAKER 4: The only real thing that happened is Panini in the antitrust action sued Fanatics in Florida and Fanatics got that case moved to New York where its action is and where all the leagues are. So, it kind of makes more sense. So you can call that a victory for Fanatics. But it's really, I mean, nowadays it really doesn't matter which judge looks at it, all judges are basically the same.

SPEAKER 4: They're all fairly decent. So it's, you know, it's a big win for Fanatics but, you know, it's, it's not really, doesn't affect the case and we'll just have to wait until, you know, later this year to see later next year to see, you know, who's actually gonna come out on top of those cases.

SPEAKER 2: So, kind of the, the paraphrase, I mean, you, you said it a lot better than, than I could, you know.

SPEAKER 4: I wouldn't say I say longer.

SPEAKER 2: No, I think better too both. Panini's kind of won a few of the smaller battles, but in the bigger, in the bigger war, which is the Fanatics, Panini, litigation, two pron question. Paul, number one, do those little victories if, if we want to call them that.

SPEAKER 2: And I think you touched on this a little bit in your answer. Do they, do they factor in the, the main litigation or not necessarily? They're kind of separate. And then my second question is like you said, this thing could drag on, they're in the motion to dismiss phase.

SPEAKER 2: You know, the f Panini's license is really only the 2026. Is there a chance that this litigation even go last till that year? And, you know, Fanatics just gets the licensing just because Panini's time up anyway. And then there's no need for a court ruling is, and is that something, what maybe is that Panini, what they're trying to do just so they can make cards for those, two years if, if you will.

SPEAKER 4: Yeah, and that, that I'Ll, I'Ll start with that second part first because yes, it's a very, it's very likely actually that the litigation will outlast the licenses.

SPEAKER 4: So you have, you know, the litigation, you know, that at least, you know, the WWE and the NFL P A litigation was definitely there to try to end those licenses and, you know, the judges, you know, you know, it's, while every judge is different, these two judges t seem to say, hey, we're not gonna end these early, you know, you have to go through the entire litigation to get there.

SPEAKER 4: And excuse me, typically, you know, litigation, you know, on the, on the fast track nowadays is 18 months from beginning to end.

SPEAKER 4: And that's, that's fast, which is sad. So, and that's for simpler actions. So you're really looking at, you know, maybe like 18 months from now that's gonna take you into mid 2025.

SPEAKER 4: And then you're not even depending on who wins. There could be appeals. And then when you were talking about the antitrust action, that's complex. There are some courts that when you have an antitrust antitrust action, they start you at two years.

SPEAKER 4: That's the shortest it will take to get to the end of the case. So while, and, and I think depending on who you're looking at here, Panini may want to draw out some of these actions to actually get the full amount of their licenses. And then you get into some awkwardness because what if Panini goes through the entire time frame and then ends and then Fanatics comes in.

SPEAKER 4: But there's a lawsuit saying that maybe Fanatics licenses aren't right or Panini or another already has to come in and get a license. I mean, it, it, it could be a huge mess and that's why it's fun to watch these because there's each and to get to your first part.

SPEAKER 4: Yes, these little pieces do affect it because the antitrust action that Panini brought the most important issues there for it are that Fanatics will have the ex all the exclusive licenses and they say Panini says that's bad.

SPEAKER 4: So and they're also, they're also saying that, you know, bad things happened. The Fanatics did some bad things in order to try to get these licenses earlier or in getting some of the licenses earlier.

SPEAKER 4: So you can see where if in one of these actions, if the court would rule in one of the smaller actions, if the court would have ruled in WWE say that we found Fanatics somehow interfered with this action. Well, then that looks good for Panini in the Fanatics action.

SPEAKER 4: But if we have in one of those actions, if it proceeded and Panini was found to be in breach of the contract because they didn't do something. Well, then that's good for Fanatics because it tends to say there's not, not much of a chance of an antitrust if Panini couldn't handle the contract. Well, we're saying that we could and that's how the free market works.

SPEAKER 4: If the if the licensor is not happy with the licensee, they can shop their goods elsewhere. So, yes, they are related, unproduced, predictably related. And that's what makes it, it's, it's like a 3d chess game is really how it is right now. So it's, it's just, you know, for someone like me, it's just very fun to watch.

SPEAKER 2: Yeah, no doubt. I, I know this is your thing and you, you enjoy it. And, you, you mentioned one last question and then we'll move on to some other cases. I, I know you want to talk about. Is there, is there any way in 2026 that Fanatics can't start producing football and other cards that they do have the licensing for starting then?

SPEAKER 2: Is it, would it is there any way they could be delayed in, in printing nose or is it a mute point? Like if it gets to 2026 they have the legal right to start making them? And Panini doesn't, is it as cut and dry as that?

SPEAKER 4: It, the only way that Fanatics could be stopped from making these is if a court rules. So, and you know, the action that you're looking at for that would be the antitrust action. And that's the one that takes the longest. So I would think it's unlikely that that action would resolve itself before fanatic starts those licenses.

SPEAKER 4: So I think if you look at the timeline of how it's supposed to be with, you know, Fanatics taking over in 2026 or, or whenever that is, I think those timelines are safe.

SPEAKER 4: The interesting question comes in, if Panini is able to prove its case, can they wind that license or not? And judges normally don't like to unwind business, things that are happening, they might just say, well, you know, this is bad, we'll award money and then, you know, Fanatics you have to pay Panini money or something.

SPEAKER 4: So that's a more likely result. But, I don't think it's likely if the court is going to look at ending a contract, I don't think it's likely to happen before Fanatics would take it over. And then the interesting part is if a court says, OK, Fanatics you've got too many licenses. You can't have them all.

SPEAKER 4: The court's not gonna order the license source and say, hey, Panini, you get it. If anything it'll be OK. It's open to the free market. Anybody can step in and anybody can do anything. So, so lots of questions. That's, that's why this case is so fun. These cases are so fun to watch. Yeah.

SPEAKER 2: And like you said, this thing's not gonna end tomorrow. This thing is going to, they're, like you said, they're in just the motion to dismiss face. So this, this thing is gonna be, at least a year and, and, and most likely, longer as promised, Paul. I know again, last, last time you're on in August, we really focused on what we just talked about the, the Panini, Fanatics lawsuits and the offshoots of that.

SPEAKER 2: But as you mentioned on that show, there are plenty of other litigation involved, pertaining to the Hobby and I promise they let, next time I have you on, let's talk about some of those that kind of, move your meter, pique your interest. So, the floor is yours, whatever you wanna kind of bring up and kinda, you know, set the stage or give you a synopsis of what's involved and, and what's pertaining, to the lawsuit.

SPEAKER 4: Sure. And I think, the, the, the easiest one to start with is my, what I'm calling my case of 2023. It's my favorite case of 2023. And not only that, it's a case that started in 2023 and ended in 2023. But this is the what I'm calling the Bang Bros Dot Cards case.

SPEAKER 4: This is a case where there was a website Bang Bros Dot Cards that was making pornographic cards of Bang Bros adult film stars. And the cards though, despite the subject matter being somewhat lurid were using Panini's trademarks all over the place. You had prism cards you had, I mean, it was just rated rookie and had everything. Every one of these cards was using.

SPEAKER 4: I mean, Panini's trademarks and it was, it was even to the point where, I was confused as to, I mean, it really looked legitimately like, you know, Panini's cards and that, that's what trademark law is and that's what this lawsuit was about. It was a trademark lawsuit because consumers could be confused as to who licensed this.

SPEAKER 4: And so, there were, Panini filed a lawsuit initially against Bang Bros, a parent company. I think it's called Sintra and come to find out Synera Bang Bang Bros wasn't making these cards. They were actually even infringing Bang Bros, if not the you know, the actresses that were on there, their IP rights also.

SPEAKER 4: So Panini went back, did some research and they believed an individual named Ryan Carter out of California was the individual that was actually creating and producing these cards. So, Panini filed a lawsuit against Ryan Carter as doing business as Bang Bros Dot Cards.

SPEAKER 4: And the website got taken down. Mostly because at that point, Bang Bros got mad and Bang Bros went to, you know, an arbitration type action to get immediate to immediately get that website taken down and they were successful in doing that.

SPEAKER 4: So Panini was suing Ryan Carter to stop him from making the cards, which they weren't being made anymore at least or weren't being sold on the internet. They may have been sold on ebay separately, but Ryan Carter never showed up in the lawsuit.

SPEAKER 4: So Panini just recently moved for a default judgment saying, hey judge, you know, here's our case, here's all of our evidence. The other side didn't show up, we should win and you should give us $616,000.

SPEAKER 4: The judge, I think two or three weeks ago looked at the order, looked at all the evidence and gave Panini almost all $616,000. In the default judgment, he deducted like $70 from the judgment because he noted that Panini didn't have a trademark registration for Kaboom.

SPEAKER 4: You know, K Panini tried to get a trademark registration for Kaboom but was unable to successfully get that because of, there are some comic book stores that had Kaboom or Kaboom like trademarks. So the judge did his homework, he looked at everything, he looked at every registration deducted 70 bucks, but Panini ended up being a big winner.

SPEAKER 4: So they now have a piece of paper saying that Ryan Carter owes them $616,000 for his infringement. So the there's multiple lessons in this lawsuit. One is, you know, don't rip off somebody's, IP rights.

SPEAKER 4: The other is if you do get sued, show up the court and, you know, defend yourself because the other side may very well get everything that they're asking, for that. So that's, that's my, lawsuit of the year.

SPEAKER 4: And also simply because it was contained within a year from January to December, it was, you know, started and wrapped up even with Panini suing the wrong party initially.

SPEAKER 2: That's what happens when you don't show up to court, you're gonna most likely lose. Now, chances are, I don't, I don't know, Ryan Carter, I'm assuming you don't know. This may be a, a gentleman in the, in the basement just producing these, there's a good likelihood he doesn't have $600,000.

SPEAKER 2: Even though what happens in, I always wondered about that just in general court cases when someone loses, a court decision and they're supposed to pay set amount and they don't have that to their name. What happens with, with that?

SPEAKER 4: Yeah, this is, you know, this is where, you know, he, the py has a court order saying you owe us as much money so they can go into the trying to go to the debt collection process, try and get, his, paychecks, you know, have, you know, money taken out of there.

SPEAKER 4: If they do try to enforce it against him, I imagine we'll see a future bankruptcy action. Carter will declare bankruptcy and then it will be up to the bankruptcy judge to not only, you know, make sure that that debt somehow gets somewhat paid, but any other debts that Carter may have also.

SPEAKER 4: So that's where you get the pennies on the dollar potential pennies on the dollar payment. Here, it's a sure it's a great $616,000 judgment as unlikely. Panini will get 616,000. And in fact, there was another Hobby case that happened just recently.

SPEAKER 4: It, it was only over about $200,000 but in there, in the bankruptcy judge ordered the defendant to pay $1000 a month until the full amount was paid. So here you could see, you know, $1000 a month for, you know, 600 months, you know, 50 year payment type plan or something for a Panini to get it.

SPEAKER 4: But sometimes when it comes to trademarks, really what you, you're trying to do is a corporation is get that win to show others that my trademarks have value. I was willing to get this money and it really becomes that judgment. Just hang it on your refrigerator. It's really cool. But you're probably not gonna get paid for it.

SPEAKER 2: Can they garnish potential his future wages? In other words, he work starts a new job.

SPEAKER 2: He's an employee, can a judge or whoever makes that, ruling say, you know, almost like, put, you know, like payments for child support so much comes out of your, your check automatically and goes to the recipient and, and obviously child support, it's usually, you know, the mother of the kids can, this can something like that happen against Ryan Carter where future employment so much is coming out of his check and going to Panini or, or not necessarily.

SPEAKER 4: They could try, they could try to do that. It's never guaranteed, especially when it comes to like a, a business doing. I mean, you know, in a case where it's a family where there's kids involved where there's an alimony involved. I think courts are more willing to garnish wages there. They still may be willing to in this instance, try to garnish wages, for that.

SPEAKER 4: But I think ultimately that would be determined by a bankruptcy judge and, it'll, and that's, you know, a ways down the road and really how much does Panini want to spend, you know, throwing that, you know, good money or bad money after the good money to try to try to get this. So it wouldn't shock me. I, I've had similar actions like this never that big.

SPEAKER 4: I mean, we once had a $35,000 default judgment against a copyright infringer. And, you know, we just left the day with that, we enforced the client's IP the client was happy that everything got shut down after that. And, you know, basically, we, we actually did that. We hung the order on our fridge in our office, you know, and put a little a plus on there and, you know, that's the best thing you can do with it.

SPEAKER 2: So it, now, obviously for Panini, it's a win because they, you know, they don't want their, their brands associated with that kind of material. If there's stuff still on ebay, they can legally tell go to ebay and say, hey, we won this case, those auctions has to be removed.

SPEAKER 2: We don't want, we, we didn't, those are our rated rookie logos. That is an unauthorized, you know, copy, they ebay would have to take those, remove those auctions from its website and then, and then the other selling platforms as well, correct.

SPEAKER 4: And the reason that they have those warnings that are there that, you know, you have to notify ebay to take them down is because you're giving ebay a reasonable time period to do that. So they don't get sued. That's why they get those.

SPEAKER 4: They're not, you know, taking it down out of the kindness of their heart or because there's a court order there, there's because there's some case law saying, hey, if the IP owner tells you ebay that there's infringement going on and you don't do anything within a reasonable time frame, they can sue you for infringement as well.

SPEAKER 2: All right. And so Bang, but just to kind of put a, a bow tie on this one. Bang Brothers. Actually, they, they weren't responsible for the product.

SPEAKER 2: This was, just a, a lone wolf, someone in their house or whatever that decided to make these cards of these actresses and, and stars of that genre and use Panini sort of, you know, copyright rated rookies Kaboom, that sort of thing. And so Bang Brothers is, is, are they, are they in involved, are they suing or is it, is this case is over?

SPEAKER 4: They have not sued. I don't know if they would, I think it's, you know, a dry, well, at this point, to the extent there probably was any money Panini's first and Panini will get it. They certainly won't get all $616,000. But, I think it's more of a, you know, Bang Bros can just be happy in the fact that they got the website shut down.

SPEAKER 4: So that shows again to them. And the most, you know, when you look at a company money is obviously nice. But, also what's really important is to show that we have IP, we enforce the IP and we win on our IP that really helps in later lawsuits to show that you have strong IP.

SPEAKER 4: So regardless of if Panini gets any of this money, they can point to their rated rookie cards and say, hey, we've successfully litigated these cards and we've won a lot on these and be before we give up on this case. You know, another reason I love this case so much is because the, the Bang Bros Dot Cards actually changed rated rookie and they made it x-rated rookie and I just thought that was so funny.

SPEAKER 4: And now, unfortunately, whenever I'm seeing like the, the new rated rookie cards for the NBA products coming up, I'm like, you know, but first thing I think in my head is oh, x-rated rookie, you know. So it's, he's kinda, at least in my mind, added this little, you know, a little thing every time I see rated rookie. Now, I will think of the Bang Bros Dot Cards case.

SPEAKER 2: Now I gotta put you on the hot seat phone and, and I know you collect cards pertain, that's one of your things. You collect these cards pertaining to litigation did you, is this an, any of these cards? Do you own any of these?

SPEAKER 4: I do. I do. So I went out and III, I bought a couple of them when the lawsuit actually was started and that completely ruined my ebay searches. My ebay suggested searches after that were just, just, just horrible. But then also I received a, anonymous package, which actually contained, a box of cards, of the bros dot cards.

SPEAKER 4: So I had a funny tweet, you know, thread that I put together about opening these. And I, so I took a picture of each one of the cards and I shared that so people can get a laugh. But also, you know, forgetting that my phone syncs to our family's photo server and our screensaver of our TV pop stuff up.

SPEAKER 4: So somehow I accidentally when I did this, put these brow dot cards on our family screen saver that popped up. So, yeah, you know. Yeah. So long, long story short. Yes, I do own some of these. They are very fun cards. They are not displayed on my desk right now as you can imagine.

SPEAKER 2: That's funny. That's funny.

SPEAKER 5: Time to hear from one of our great sponsors. But Sports Nation will be right back after that.

SPEAKER 6: For nearly 50 years. Sports Collectors Digest has been the voice of the Hobby, bringing you comprehensive coverage of the sports collectible industry from industry news, auction results market analysis and in depth stories about collectors and their collections. Sports Collectors digest has everything you need to know about the Hobby.

SPEAKER 6: S CD also your leading source for listings of sports collectible dealers, card shops, card shows and the latest from the industry's top companies to check out all the latest news or to subscribe to the Hobby's oldest magazine. Visit Sports Collectors, digest.com or call 1 808 29 55 61.

SPEAKER 1: Let's go. You are listening to the Sports Card Nation Podcast.

SPEAKER 2: All right. Again, I, like I said, open for what else, what else do you wanna, you know, let people know about that, is, interesting to you and obviously, interesting to the Hobby and, and Hobby. Well, sure.

SPEAKER 4: So another action that I'm, that I'm like, watching and I, and I like a lot is the, Laana case. So, Laana is a trading card game, that was, released this year. It's, main license is Disney.

SPEAKER 4: And it's, been a, fun product to actually watch when it was released. There was, you know, insufficient product that was out there. So you had high prices, people were upset. And now, Ravens Burger, who's the company that's making these Disney products has flooded the market with these cards.

SPEAKER 4: So now the prices are dropping. So it's, it's really fun, at least from that standpoint just to watch people who are newly into collecting cards, newly into trading card games, how they're getting basically a good master's class and you know, limited supply, overproduced supply, potential counterfeit cards that are out there.

SPEAKER 4: People are always worrying about, hey, is this card an error card because it's got a nick in the corner. It's like, no, that's just a damaged card.

SPEAKER 4: It's so it's fun to watch that way. But before the cards were, were released, upper deck, actually sued Ravens Burger and the creator of the game, Ryan, one of the creators of the game, Ryan Miller saying that Ryan Miller used to work for upper deck as a consultant and they were working on a, an upper deck trading card game called Rush of Ior or Rush of Ior.

SPEAKER 4: I'm not sure how to pronounce it, but that Ryan Miller had allegedly left UD, took the mechanism for how the game is played and use that for Larkana.

SPEAKER 4: So it's basically a lawsuit kind of a trade, the the kind of lawsuit saying, hey, Laana is basically R Vor and you got to the market first and you have destroyed the value of Russia Vor. So we want basically that back, you know, we're not gonna, you know, our product could come out right now and everyone's gonna look at us and think we're a lower a clone when really we were the first ones out there.

SPEAKER 4: So it's been a fun lawsuit. To, to, to watch because you have upper deck, you know, who's mainly known for their sports trading cards. Sure. They've got, you know, some, you know, entertainment and some tcgs out there, but they're really known for their sports cards, suing a new entrant into the TCG area and has to do with Disney Cards.

SPEAKER 4: And there was a lot of worry at first that upper deck might shut down, or try to shut down the car, the lower kind of cards before they were released. Upper deck decided not to. This lawsuit has been on a slow track because upper deck and this is, you know, this is like the stuff that only a lawyer would like. But upper deck sued Laana in State Court in California.

SPEAKER 4: So the defendants, Ravens Burger and Ryan Miller had the case transferred from State Court to Federal Court in California. So upper deck lost their judge. Then they asked, hey, we should actually transfer this case from California to Seattle because that's where Ryan Miller lives.

SPEAKER 4: He doesn't live in California. So this lawsuit should have been brought in, in, in Seattle. And I was kind of down on that chance because it's really, you know, if, if the case, if the case goes that way or went that way, you're kind of saying anybody who works abroad, you know, or works remotely, they can only be sued where their house is rather than where their employer is.

SPEAKER 4: So I thought it was kind of, you know, silly, but a couple of weeks ago, the judge, actually the California judge transferred the case to Seattle.

SPEAKER 4: So it's kind of, you have a holding out there that, you know, I think a lot of companies probably might want to look at where if you have remote employees and your remote employee, you know, allegedly steals trade secrets and you want to sue that remote employee, you may have to sue them where they are.

SPEAKER 4: And since we're kind of in this remote economy where, you know, people could be working from Hawaii or Bangladesh or wherever they are, you know, you, you, it's something that, you know, might have this unintended backfire of limiting where people remotely work, especially for California company.

SPEAKER 4: Unfortunately, that's all that's happened in this lawsuit. This lawsuit was filed, I think in April March or April, I mean, it was pretty early in, in, the 2023 when it was brought and we're still at square one.

SPEAKER 4: Well, Ravensburg and Miller did move to dismiss the case saying that, you know, if there's no merit to it, the California judge said, you know what, I don't need to make that decision. The Seattle Judge, he has to make that decision. So I'm gonna punt and let him do it.

SPEAKER 4: So the case is, you know, in Seattle right now, it's still at square one we don't know if it's gonna continue and if it does continue, which will probably be decided in three months, you know, we still got time to even see if the case will continue. So it's a, it's a fun one watch.

SPEAKER 4: It's frustrating how long it's gonna take for that one to begin. But it's, interesting because mainly the litigants in the Hobby are, sports trading card companies. So this at least branches us out to trading card games. And so we get, get to see, you know, a little, a different side of the Hobby.

SPEAKER 2: And these cards are already produced. So upper deck really, at this point, once they find for them to win, it would have to be a financial, win, right? Rather than stopping production of, of the cars they're already being made and sold. So this for them, for a win for upper deck would be, hey, Ryan Miller and your company, you owe what, you know, you have to pay this to upper deck.

SPEAKER 4: Right? Yeah. And they're still, seeking, some type of injunction to shut down, which is very diff, it's very difficult to get in the first place to shut something down.

SPEAKER 4: You know, maybe they, upper deck says they have patents, patent applications on file that, if those ever issue if they get a win there. Well, then Ravens Burger might have to change the rule set. If it's found to infringe, there's lots of ifs there.

SPEAKER 4: I, I don't think that will happen but there is a chance a long way down the road that, you know, if upper predict gets lucky and gets a lot of wins that they may have to, that Ravens Burger may have to do something. I think it's unlike though, I think you're exactly right. This is probably a financial. If upper deck does win, it'll be financial. It won't be some type of injunctive relief.

SPEAKER 2: And you mentioned that, you know, now, now the, the case is in Ryan Miller's backyard, if you will, you know, in sports, there's a home field advantage, right? You play in your home stadium with your home fans, is that, that's in reality, that's probably not, doesn't translate into a courtroom like a judge is still gonna, you know, there's no hometown judge.

SPEAKER 2: Oh, you're from here. I like you. I mean, that, that, or at least it, to me it shouldn't be like that. It's just the convenience for, in this case, Ryan Miller.

SPEAKER 4: It's, it's difficult to tell sometimes you, sometimes, depending on if you're the winning side or the losing side, you think you got hometown. I mean, there's a couple of courts that I have definitely been hometown in, Seattle isn't one of them. I'm looking at you, Minneapolis but, the, really what you're looking for more.

SPEAKER 4: So, and the danger to upper deck here is the David versus Goliath type situation. If you get a jury here, it'll be a Seattle jury. Ryan Miller is an individual from Seattle. So depending on how the themes of the case go, it could be, hey, upper deck, this big company that's picking on their, you know, this little employee from Seattle.

SPEAKER 4: To the extent there could be some hometown advantages. The jury could look at Ryan Miller more relate to him than to the California upper deck company and, you know, side with him on those, you know, 5050 close calls.

SPEAKER 4: And that's really to the extent there's hometown advantages. It's where you have the 5050 shots. Who are you gonna side with, you know, the California company? What's really big? I might be picking on the individual or the guy I've actually might see at the supermarket every once in a while.

SPEAKER 2: So they're gonna play to the sympathies of the jury. Like you said, the David versus Goliath, big bully picking on someone just trying to, to make a living or do their job and that sort of thing. And that's, that's where the, the local, might be a factor.

SPEAKER 4: Exactly. And, and the David versus Goliath, is a, you know, it's, it's a very popular theme, in the, in the judicial court system. I mean, it's, you know, any legal movie that you watch basically has a David versus Goliath situation. It's, it's, it is a powerful theme and that's why, you know, I do plaintiff's work.

SPEAKER 4: I tend to represent the Davids in those situation because it is such a, p powerful theme. I mean, it's, you know, it's America. It's, everybody likes to see, you know, the, the, the individual topple, the big Goliath of a company. Everyone loves that. So, that's.

SPEAKER 2: What they say. Every, everyone loves an underdog. Right.

SPEAKER 4: Exactly. It's exactly it, you know. So I think, you know, it, and then upper deck will be like, hey, that's not Miller, that's Ravens Burger. You know, they're not a small company either, you know. So they might say David and Goliath it's not.

SPEAKER 2: Yeah. All right. Probably we're, we're one more case. Your pick obviously. What other one that piques your interest? And you're keeping a close eye on.

SPEAKER 4: Another one I like is, you know, Ken Golden had his show on Netflix, the King of Collectibles. And I'm, I'm not sure if you watched it. I, I rather enjoyed it. I thought it was a pretty good show.

SPEAKER 2: I saw, I saw bits and pieces.

SPEAKER 2: I know a lot of the history of, of Ken Gold and that, that, that the show really focus AAA Ton on that. He's been on this show so he's alumnus of, of this show as well.

SPEAKER 2: But I, I haven't watched, I wouldn't say I've seen bits and pieces. So, you, apparently I think you've seen more of it than, than, than I have.

SPEAKER 4: But, go ahead next time. I mean, it's the holidays season. He gets some downtime. It's a fun. It's a quick watch. You know, but, he, he and Netflix and Golden Auctions, got sued, by, an individual who said that the, king of collectibles infringes, a copyright he has in his show, called The Golden Boys. And apparently what happened pre COVID, I think it was PRE COVID.

SPEAKER 4: He reached out to Golden Auctions and came up with a, you know, an idea for a reality show involving Golden Auctions to cover what was going on there.

SPEAKER 4: And they put together a sizzle reel where, you know, it was basically, you know, they had a couple of instances, they talked to some people, they showed some memorabilia and COVID happened, people fell out of touch with people and for whatever reason, we don't know what it is and that's what the lawsuit will be about.

SPEAKER 4: Probably Golan decided not to go forward with this person with the show and instead decided to make a reality show from with Netflix. So it's an interesting case because the copyright and copyrights are a little narrower than most people think they are a copyright in a TV show really covers that TV show itself, it doesn't necessarily cover the idea and copyrights don't cover ideas and this lawsuit seems to be overreaching.

SPEAKER 4: It seems to say that the plaintiff in this case thinks that he owns any reality TV show based off of Ken Golden and Golden Auctions and, and what they do.

SPEAKER 4: And that's, you know, II, I think it's an overreach because first of all, as much as I like the show, it was kind of, you know, it followed the general format for reality based TV shows. You know, it was kind of pawn star, you know, a little bit more focused on, you know, the items and, you know, getting them in and bringing stuff up.

SPEAKER 4: But it was very similar to other reality shows that were out there and copyright doesn't cover that. It covers specific instances. So, that's a case that's fun to watch because Ken Golden and Golden Auctions are getting a second season at Netflix. This guy is alleging that that second season, even though he's not seen it infringes his copyrights also.

SPEAKER 4: And, we'll, we'll, we'll see where the, where, where, where it goes right now. It's again, like everything it seems like that we talked about today, it's an emotion to dismiss phase. So, Golden Auction said that Netflix said that the case has no basis, basically saying what I said that it's an idea. You can't copyright an idea. No, but he owns any reality show based off of Golden options.

SPEAKER 4: And, we'll see where it goes, but it's a, it's a fun one again to watch because that Netflix show brought, you know, more eyeballs onto the Hobby. It got renewed for a second season. And, you know, unfortunately when you get more eyeballs, potentially you get more potential plaintiffs in lawsuits that, that come out of the woodwork.

SPEAKER 2: Now, you know, I, again, I'm not in the, the legal field, but the first thing that struck me hearing you explain what was all the details involved in this case. Like even though this might, you know, he did a sizzle reel, which in a sense is like a trailer unless you have like a signed contract from Golden or Golden Auction that we're gonna go in production with you to make the show.

SPEAKER 2: Like this one seems like an easy, I I could be wrong. You're gonna, you're gonna need to correct me or like this one would be to me, easy to dismiss to Netflix and Golden. I say this no contract. There's no signed agreements that we were gonna shoot this show with this gentleman. We have that here at, at Netflix. This one, this one seems pretty black and white, cut and dry and, and is there more to it than that, Paul?

SPEAKER 4: No, it's, it's, I think you're right. I think it is cut and dry. There isn't an allegation of, you know, like you said that we have a contract. Like if, if this, if the plaintiff had a contract with Ken Golden and Golden Auctions that said, you know, I will be the only person within this time frame that can make a reality show of here and there is money exchanged to show that then it would be a different case.

SPEAKER 4: But this case solely is focused on copyright, it's focused on intellectual property and that's not what it's there for. So I think it will be a open and shut case.

SPEAKER 4: However, looking at the Ravens Burger case, I thought that motion to transfer to go to Seattle was open and shut and there's no way that would have been granted. So part of the fun in litigation is there's the judge is still a person and they may seize on different things.

SPEAKER 4: And while I think there's a 90% chance that this case is dismissed, there's always that you just never know because I mean, the judge might look at it again. It's another potential David and Goliath situation. If you look at it, it's ultimately an individual who decided or who wanted to make this and had some, you know, help in trying to make this product.

SPEAKER 4: And then Big old Netflix comes in and takes it and runs somewhere else. So the judge might say, hey, you know, this, I'm kind of like the little guy here. So we'll let this case at least continue for a little bit and see where it goes. You just, you just never know an illegal and a.

SPEAKER 2: Win for the little guy in this case, if he was to win would again have to be financial. Right? I mean, Golden's not gonna stop shooting with Netflix if he, if he was to win and say, ok, we'll do that show. So the only, only thing they'll get or he'll get would have to be a financial victory. They're not gonna get the show as originally or, or what he thought was originally planned. Am I right?

SPEAKER 4: And you never, let's hypothetically say the case was stronger and this guy might actually have a chance of winning. He could actually potentially negotiate a OK, you can keep doing the show, but I get a cut of the show or it could also be where, well, I want the show taken down.

SPEAKER 4: You know, if he does win the case, you know, one of the options and especially I love copyright cases and trademark cases because part of what you ask for in your relief section is that the infringing ip be destroyed, that the words in, in there destroy it. So there is a, you know, it's very difficult.

SPEAKER 4: I don't think it would happen here. But if he had a stronger case and one he could seek injunctive relief to have Netflix hit the, hit the delete button, it won't happen. I can almost guarantee that won't happen. But that is a, you know, possibility that's out there if it was a stronger case.

SPEAKER 2: In these cases from a lawyer perspective, the gentleman are there lawyers that will say, or maybe this is exactly exactly what happened. Like you, you're a long shot to win this. I can't, I'm not taking this case.

SPEAKER 2: I don't have, you know, I don't have the time, you know, you've got like a 10 or 20% chance. If that, of winning that does he have to like, sort of lawyer shop to find someone that says, all right, I'm gonna take up this, you know, this banner and run with you. How, how does that go?

SPEAKER 4: You know, and you're exactly right because as, as a plaintiff's attorney, I'm really picky in the cases that I bring. I mean, I've, I've rejected 99% of the cases that have come to me because when you're a plaintiff's attorney, you're putting up all the money, you're putting up all the capital and you only get paid if you win.

SPEAKER 4: So if you file a case and you put up all the money and it's a loser, you're, that's not a good business, you know, way to run a business, you're gonna go bankrupt at some point that so, here and it was something that I pointed out the attorneys that brought this case while they're business attorneys, they've got a lot of business b to B type litigation.

SPEAKER 4: Business to business type litigation. I don't think they've ever brought a copyright action before. So I think this is one of those ones where, they're unfortunately getting an education in copyright law.

SPEAKER 4: That's probably why they took the case. But sometimes, now, sometimes you will take a case that might have only a 5050 chance of winning if there's a lot of money involved in it. So that could be something here. Maybe they looked at the case and they said, OK, I think we probably only have a 30% chance of winning. But if we win, it's a billion dollars.

SPEAKER 4: You know, in that instance, it might be worth, you know, $100,000 bet to see if we can actually win a billion dollars. Maybe there is some type of calculus like that, that like that. I think it's probably more you have people who are not familiar with copyright, bringing a lawsuit. They think it's stronger than it is.

SPEAKER 4: And you know, unfortunately, like I said, they're getting a, a copyright $100,000 copyright lesson right now.

SPEAKER 2: One last question pertain that just on, on the tax side of thing, you, you mentioned yourself like, you know, you take a case that you feel like is, is a strong one because if you don't win, you don't make any money. You're not gonna put, is it at least if, if that happens, worst case scenario, you don't win a case, you don't get paid. Is it at least a tax write off for your business? How does that work?

SPEAKER 4: So, that's, one of those things. It's, luckily I don't get to do the finance side very much when it comes to this. I'm, you know, I'm, you know, I'm the guy that shows up the court and we have somebody above me who handles all that stuff. But yes, you know, it, it, it is a business expense but I'm pretty sure when it comes to like pla, you know, patent plaintiff expenses that you put into a case.

SPEAKER 4: I don't think it's an immediate business deduction. I think you have to amortize it over a few years. So I think it counts more as, you know, whatever that is, you know, it counts more as property than as an immediate business expense.

SPEAKER 4: So, yes, you can deduct it, but it's not all in one year better to win the case and, and worry about tax write ups right now. It's, it's, it's, it's so much better to not have to go to the managing partners and say, ok, we're gonna have to write off $200,000 here. It's, don't worry we can take it over five years. You know, it's, it's better to win.

SPEAKER 2: Well, Paul, thanks for coming back and sharing some of these cases. Cover a little more ground again. I'Ll say it again.

SPEAKER 2: Love to have you back maybe in a few more months and kind of make this as long as you do it, sort of, almost a regular segment, kind of maybe some new cases that pop up, by then, or follow ups to, stuff we, we discussed, before I let you go to how many, you know, I know you said this last time, to your knowledge, how many Hobby related cases are on the dock? Its, as we speak, today here, in late Dec, early January.

SPEAKER 4: And, and this is with the school that, there are some cases that are out there that I probably don't know about because, you know, because I can look at every federal case, every Federal Court and see what's out there.

SPEAKER 4: I can look at about 30 State Court systems and see what's out there, but there's some that are just unfriendly. So, so that with that long intro, there's about 40 cases, that are out there that are pending that, can be watched, that we know about 2020 three was a busy year. We got a lot of new lawsuits, but some of them are resolving.

SPEAKER 4: The Panini Wwek said, you know, looks to have resolved itself. The bros dot Cards case looks to resolve itself. So I'm hoping, 2024 we'll see some of the 2023 actions. We'll get past the motion to dismiss stage and hopefully we'll get a bunch more.

SPEAKER 2: And you'll be in your, in your glory as they say. You know, I mean.

SPEAKER 4: One of those things where it's so silly that, I mean, like sometimes you'll get a new filing because nobody, nobody in the legal area files their stuff until like three in the afternoon, five in the afternoon. So, but there have been multiple times this year where it's Friday at five o'clock.

SPEAKER 4: And I go to my, you know, everyone else is going out, going to the movies, going to the bars, getting a drink. I'm sitting at my computer, I'm hitting refresh to try and see if anything pops up here because I want to find out what happened here.

SPEAKER 2: So, well, listen, you love it. You're passionate about it. Nothing wrong with that. This is your, in a sense livelihood while you might not be directly involved. You're, you're an attorney yourself. So, you have at least an interest on, on, on that level and listen, you, you keep us all, abridged and informed.

SPEAKER 2: You know, we, we don't speak, legalese and the way you, you do a great job, but you don't need me to tell you this. You do a great job of breaking it down, sort of in layman's terms. So someone who didn't go to law school, like, like myself can understand what's in play how this works. Maybe who's the favorite? Who's the underdog? At least on, on paper.

SPEAKER 2: And, I always enjoy, you know, picking your brain so to speak and, and seeing how this can affect the, the Hobby. Love that again. Back on we'll kind of, retouch base. But as always I give the guest sort of the final word where people can find, your content and, and your, you know, you know, the stuff that you post pertaining to, the Hobby and, and the cases involved.

SPEAKER 4: No, thanks. And I, and I really appreciate that. Thank you. And, if anybody wants to find me, I'm on Twitter at Paul underscore Luso. I'm almost on there every day talking cause there's almost something happening just about every day. It might be minor but there's something fun to talk about.

SPEAKER 2: All right, Paul. Well, let's end this. This was the second time on. I don't, I hope it's not the last time I will. And if, if the, if like you said, with 40 cases that you even, those are the ones you know about, I think you'll have plenty of, of material when we can have, get back. And, maybe even, maybe by what time we, you come back, we even have some new ones, make, on horizon, as well.

SPEAKER 4: Perfect. We'll do that. Definitely. All right, thanks, Paul.

SPEAKER 2: Ok. Thank you. Always. Appreciate Paul, let go stopping by.

SPEAKER 2: Makes it a lot easier for us to understand in layman's terms, what's going on and what may be coming down the line when it comes to Hobby litigation. And I know for some, you know, maybe don't really care that much. But, you know, ultimately a lot of this stuff, you know, will have factor into what might happen in the Hobby.

SPEAKER 2: So, while we might not like it as much as, as Paul does, it's important and, you know, we're gonna have him on as long as he'll come on, every so many months to kind of, update us and, and catch us up and we, we appreciate that we're gonna hear from our Hobby as a people announcer and some closing thoughts.

SPEAKER 1: And that will conclude this episode time for our Hobby is the people announcer of the week.

SPEAKER 7: Hey, this is Herman from personal reels and Hyatt on YouTube and Twitter at three B collection. Reminding you to always remember the Hobby is the people.

SPEAKER 1: If you'd like to be the Hobby is the people announcer of the week, do a WAV or MP3 file and send it to Sports Card Nation BC at gmail.com.

SPEAKER 8: That's a wrap for this week. Huge thanks to you, the listeners out there because without you, there is no ice.

SPEAKER 8: If you like the show, we truly appreciate positive reviews. Big ups to our great guests who drive the show and our awesome sponsors who make it all possible. Sports Card Nation will be back next week, but don't forget to catch either Hobby quick hits or cod mentions coming up on Monday.

SPEAKER 8: I'Ll leave you with this.

SPEAKER 8: How do we change the world?

SPEAKER 8: One? Random act of kindness at a time.

SPEAKER 9: Remember the Hobby is the People Hobby hotline is the Hobby's only live interactive calling show. Join some of your favorite Hobby personalities every Saturday 11 a.m. eastern. 8 a.m. Pacific and the first Tuesday of each month at 9 p.m. Eastern to discuss the hottest Hobby topics.

SPEAKER 9: If you miss us live, catch us after the fact on all major podcast platforms. Follow us on socials at Hobby hotline.

SPEAKER 10: Hobby News Daily is your home page of the Hobby providing original writing, exclusive gem rate data. A daily morning minute podcast and some of the best content creators in the Hobby. Remember Hobby news, daily.com and at Hobby News Daily on Social Happy Collecting.