Jump to content

brjXRP17

Member
  • Content Count

    70
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1
  1. brjXRP17

    Abandon the "XRP" trademark?

    That's a good argument, @enrique11.
  2. brjXRP17

    Abandon the "XRP" trademark?

    Ripple (the company) has every right to protect their trademarks, and they should. They need to protect the words and logos for XCurrent, XRapid, XVia, Runs on Ripple (thanks, @aye-epp), etc., and again, that is encouraged. Their business would be harmed if someone else tried to use "XCurrent" and that logo in the context of financial services (obviously). That is why the trademark protection exists. But argue the other side for me, @Yodaxrp, @Crypto31 and @Plikk? No one person or entity controls XRP. Thus, in the context of financial services, what does Ripple (the company) have to gain from keeping the trademark? Let's say we all start a business together, we decide to go the route of an ICO, and we name our token named XRP. One could argue that would be confusing right? How would people distinguish the two marks? If our new company were to file for trademark protection on our new token, we would be (or should be) denied trademark protection by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office because XRP, in this context, not only already exists and is being used by multiple companies, but the mark is in already in the public domain and one cannot file for protection on something that is already in the public domain. Apple (the company) and the NASDAQ do not own the trademark for "AAPL" or that stock ticker. However, if our new company decided that we wanted to go public (ha, we're killing it guys), we would be not be able to use "AAPL" as our unique identifier or stock ticker. Hence, Ripple (the company) as nothing to worry about if someone else we to come along and try to use XRP as their token/digital asset/cryptocurrency name. Why should they keep using their resources (money and legal team) to protect it? Lastly, I wanted to go over two (2) foundation examples pertaining to trademarks. The Linux Foundation owns the trademark for Hyperledger. That foundation was awarded the mark for "Hyperledger," describing it as "computer and mobile device software, namely, software for implementing and recording financial and business transactions." All the foundation did was trademark the name, not the code. The Stellar Foundation does not own the trademark for "XLM." cc: @Pablo @Sebastian
  3. Hey guys, As of today (October 7, 2018), Ripple Labs, Inc. has filed 53 trademarks in the United States, 48 of which are considered "live" whereas 5 of the 53 trademarks have been "abandoned" by the company. Ripple Labs, Inc. has quite the intellectual property portfolio, and it seems to be growing too (e.g., the company has filed three (3) trademarks in 2018). And we have seen at least two (2) lawsuits in which Ripple (the company) has sued in order to protect their intellectual property (exactly what you want to see from a well ran company). My intent with this post today is simply to raise some criticism, hopefully constructive, encouraging this community to debate one (1) of the U.S. trademarks still considered "live" and being protected by Ripple (the company) - the trademark for "XRP." My question is why not abandon this "XRP" trademark? A trademark is a symbol, word, group of words, name, and/or a design that is legally registered or established by use as representing a company or a product/service. Think of a brand name. Although trademark registration is not mandatory, one files for trademark protection in order to establish the presumption of ownership, to establish the right to use the mark on or in the connection with goods/services, and/or to file a trademark infringement lawsuit in U.S. federal court to obtain monetary remedies, including profits, damages, costs, etc. Ripple (the company) has an active or "live" trademark for "XRP" (see picture below). The "XRP" trademark was filed for protection with the US Patent and Trademark Office back in 2013 by OpenCoin, Inc. You can see the description of the goods and services and other information from the trademark in the picture attached to this post. A lot has happened in five (5) years since this "XRP" trademark was filed for protection by OpenCoin, and we all get that. However, XRP (digital asset/cryptocurrency) is independent from Ripple (the company). We have heard this time and time again from management. To my knowledge, and according to my research, no one owns the trademark for "USD" or "BTC" (although there are several trademarks from multiple companies using "USD" and "BTC" for other products/services, and the USPTO or U.S. Trademark office allows for that). Abandoned trademarks (by Ripple Labs, Inc.): 1) "Interledger" (abandoned in August, 2017) 2) "Ripple Labs" (abandoned in September, 2016)* 3) "Ripple Labs" (abandoned in September, 2016)* 4) "Ripple Communications" (abandoned in June, 2014) 5) "Rippln" (abandoned in January, 2015) *"Ripple Labs" is still bring protected by a different trademark Last point. See the list of abandoned trademarks above. These five (5) marks were all abandoned by Ripple (the company). For example, we all know that Ripple (the company) invented Interledger, the open protocol suite for sending payments across different ledgers. Ripple (the company) filed for trademark protection on "Interledger" in October 2016 and then abandoned the same trademark in August 2017. We all know that Interledger W3C Community Group is now developing Interledger, a group of hundreds of companies and individual contributors. It is decentralized (no one owns it). XRP is also decentralized. No one, including a company, should be able to trademark "XRP" and establish the presumption of ownership over the three letters "XRP" in the context of financial services. The trademark should be open and in the public domain, and the person (or company) who created the trademark five (5) years ago should no longer benefit from that original filing. Thoughts? Let's discuss. Source(s): https://www.uspto.gov/trademark (search TESS, search "Ripple Labs" and use the option to search by owner name/address); https://interledger.org/ @Snoopy @Pablo @zerpdigger @vlad_got_it @jcdenton @Mrsrippley @Sebastian @xrpisking @EasterBunny
  4. Guys, Two months ago, several people within the community asked whether there were any updates on the lawsuits filed against Ripple Labs, Inc., so here is your update for October 2018. Please keep in mind that the U.S. justice system moves pretty slow. Essentially, there are two (2) open or active cases Ripple Labs, Inc. is involved with (as of October 6, 2018). And you can see the progress being made since June 2018. June 2018 Update: https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/24386-ripple-lawsuit-tracker/ August 2018 Update: https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/26151-ripple-lawsuit-tracker-august-2018-update/ The open or active cases are in bold: 1.) 2014 - Ripple vs. LaCore Enterprises (closed) 2.) 2015 - Ripple vs. Kefi Labs (closed) 3.) 2015 - Arthur Britto vs. Jed McCaleb (closed)** 4.) 2016 - Bitstamp vs. Ripple, Jed McCaleb, Stellar (closed) 5.) 2016 - Ripple vs. Pixel Labs (closed) 6.) 2017 - R3 vs. Ripple (Delaware) (closed) 7.) 2017 - Ripple and XRP II vs. R3 (California) (closed) 8.) 2017 - R3 vs. Ripple (New York) (closed) 9.) 2017 - Tony Petrucci vs. Ripple (closed) 10.) 2018 - Ryan Coffey vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (closed) 11.) 2018 - Ryan Coffey vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (U.S. Federal Court) (closed) 12.) 2018 - Vladi Zakinov vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (open/active) 13.) 2018 - David Oconer vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (open/active) 14.) 2018 - Avner Greenwald vs. Ripple, XRP II, Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ben Lawsky (California) (open/active) 15.) 2018 - Avner Greenwald vs. Ripple, XRP II, Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ben Lawsky (U.S. Federal Court) (open/active) Notes on active cases: 12.) 2018 - Vladi Zakinov vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (open/active) 13.) 2018 - David Oconer vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (open/active) * Next date/hearing - October 26, 2018 ** These two (2) cases were combined via an order from the judge. This was a procedural move by Ripple Labs, Inc. 14.) 2018 - Avner Greenwald vs. Ripple, XRP II, Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ben Lawsky (California) (open/active) 15.) 2018 - Avner Greenwald vs. Ripple, XRP II, Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ben Lawsky (U.S. Federal Court) (open/active) * Next date/hearing - October 24, 2018 ** Ripple Labs, Inc. filed a notice back in August 2018 and essentially moved case #14 (above) from state court (California) to U.S. Federal Court. The plaintiff, Avner Greenwald, is trying to get that case back to state court (California), and they filed a Motion to Remand. This is very similar to what happened with Ryan Coffey v. Ripple Labs, Inc (#10 above). That case was moved from state court to federal court. Ryan Coffey lost a Motion to Remand, for he was trying to move that case back to state court. Ultimately, the case was dropped once Ryan Coffey realized that they were staying in federal court. Looking for the same thing to happen here (stay in federal court; however, we shall see). @Snoopy @Pablo @zerpdigger @vlad_got_it @jcdenton @Mrsrippley @Sebastian @xrpisking
  5. Guys, Update to the Ripple Lawsuit Tracker List provided below, for there is one (1) new court case to report on this morning (8/10/2018). The newest case was filed on 2 days ago on August 8, 2018. It is #15 on the list (however, it is related to #14; notes on that below). I have been asked by a few people within the community as to whether there have been any updates on all of these lawsuits filed against Ripple Labs, Inc., so here is your update. Please keep in mind that the U.S. justice system moves pretty slow. That is just the way it is, so these lawsuits are not going to be decided anytime soon (unless there is a settlement). The open or active cases are in bold: 1.) 2014 - Ripple vs. LaCore Enterprises (closed) 2.) 2015 - Ripple vs. Kefi Labs (closed) 3.) 2015 - Arthur Britto vs. Jed McCaleb (closed)** 4.) 2016 - Bitstamp vs. Ripple, Jed McCaleb, Stellar (closed) 5.) 2016 - Ripple vs. Pixel Labs (closed) 6.) 2017 - R3 vs. Ripple (Delaware) (closed) 7.) 2017 - Ripple and XRP II vs. R3 (California) (open/active) 8.) 2017 - R3 vs. Ripple (New York) (open/active) 9.) 2017 - Tony Petrucci vs. Ripple (closed) 10.) 2018 - Ryan Coffey vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (open/active) 11.) 2018 - Ryan Coffey vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (U.S. Federal Court) (open/active) 12.) 2018 - Vladi Zakinov vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (open/active) 13.) 2018 - David Oconer vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (open/active) 14.) 2018 - Avner Greenwald vs. Ripple, XRP II, Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ben Lawsky (California) (open/active) 15.) 2018 - Avner Greenwald vs. Ripple, XRP II, Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ben Lawsky (U.S. Federal Court) (open/active) Notes on active cases: 7.) 2017 - Ripple and XRP II vs. R3 (California) (open/active) * Next date/hearing - November 28, 2018 ** This case is on appeal in California. The next hearing is a case management conference originally scheduled for July 25, 2018. However, it got moved to November 28, 2018. 8.) 2017 - R3 vs. Ripple (New York) (open/active) * Next date/hearing - September 4, 2018 ** This case is still ongoing in New York. This is the R3 case you need to pay attention to, not #7 (above). This case is in the discovery phase, and both parties are more likely than not combing through emails, texts, other correspondences, etc., preparing to go to trial. There is an upcoming compliance conference, and that is where the judge will be updated on whether the case is on schedule or whether there are delays. That conference was scheduled for July 10, 2018. However, it got moved to September 4, 2018. 10.) 2018 - Ryan Coffey vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (open/active) 11.) 2018 - Ryan Coffey vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (U.S. Federal Court) (open/active) * Next date/hearing - Unknown ** This case was originally filed in California. Ripple Labs, Inc. moved the case to U.S. Federal Court (#10 and #11 are related). Essentially, both parties are in a spat about venue choice. Ryan Coffey wants this case to stay in California Court whereas Ripple Labs, Inc. wants this case in Federal Court. Again, the main issue here being "securities related" (think SEC or federal level), one party wants the state court to hear the case whereas the other wants a federal court to hear the case. Not getting into that again, please read my post/response from May 5, 2018 on this very issue (Cyan v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund; the link is below). https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/23224-ripple-sued-for-securities-violations/?page=9&tab=comments#comment-386239 12.) 2018 - Vladi Zakinov vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (open/active) * Next date/hearing - September 7, 2018 ** This case is ongoing in California. We are waiting for Ripple's response or answer to the original complaint. Per their request and a motion filed, on June 26, 2018, the court granted Ripple additional time to answer and respond to the complaint; their time was extended to September 7, 2018. Not sure if this case will get moved to U.S. Federal Court or not (it does pertain to a securities related issue). 13.) 2018 - David Oconer vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (open/active) * Next date/hearing - August 29, 2018 ** This case is ongoing in California. We are waiting for Ripple's response or answer to the original complaint. Unlike #12 (above), no extension has been motioned for or requested by Ripple Labs, so I am expecting an answer to the original complaint soon. Case conferences with the judge have been scheduled for August 29, 2018 and October 25, 2018. Not sure if this case will get moved to U.S. Federal Court either (it does pertain to a securities related issue). 14.) 2018 - Avner Greenwald vs. Ripple, XRP II, Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ben Lawsky (California) (open/active) 15.) 2018 - Avner Greenwald vs. Ripple, XRP II, Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ben Lawsky (U.S. Federal Court) (open/active) * Next date/hearing - Unknown ** This case was originally filed in California. Ripple Labs, Inc. moved it to U.S. Federal Court two days ago on August 8, 2018. Read my notes on #10, #11 above. Same issue (#14 and #15 are related). We should have an update towards the end of August or early September. @Pablo @Snoopy @zerpdigger @vlad_got_it @Mrsrippley @Sebastian @xrpisking @mikkelhviid @MemberBerry @Dario_o
  6. @FreedomGundam, once one state court in California makes a ruling, the rest of California will more likely than not follow suit there. There could be an appeal, but California securities laws should be interrupted the same way by all courts in California (or you would imagine the California courts would all come to the same conclusion, but that's not how the U.S. system works). And the facts in all four securities cases alleged by the plaintiff(s) vary, so each case is separate and needs to be ruled upon separately (and there could be different rulings within the same state). Very confusing. Furthermore, a state court in New York could rule a completely different way (i.e., California could say XRP is not a security, New York could say XRP is a security). On the federal level, the SEC can put this to bed right now and say whether XRP is or is not a security. And the SEC will, hopefully by the end of the 2018.
  7. brjXRP17

    Ripple Lawsuit Tracker

    Guys, Update to the Ripple Labs, Inc. Lawsuit Tracking list provided below, for two (2) new court cases were filed against Ripple Labs, Inc. since this original post (#13, #14). The open or active cases are in bold: 1.) 2014 - Ripple vs. LaCore Enterprises (closed or not active) 2.) 2015 - Ripple vs. Kefi Labs (closed or not active) 3.) 2015 - Arthur Britto vs. Jed McCaleb (closed or not active)** 4.) 2016 - Bitstamp vs. Ripple, Jed McCaleb, Stellar (closed or not active) 5.) 2016 - Ripple vs. Pixel Labs (closed or not active) 6.) 2017 - R3 vs. Ripple (Delaware) (closed or not active) 7.) 2017 - Ripple and XRP II vs. R3 (California) (open or active; on appeal) 8.) 2017 - R3 vs. Ripple (New York) (open or active) 9.) 2017 - Tony Petrucci vs. Ripple (closed or not active) 10.) 2018 - Ryan Coffey vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (open or active) 11.) 2018 - Ryan Coffey vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (U.S. Federal Court) (open or active) 12.) 2018 - Vladi Zakinov vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (open or active) 13.) 2018 - David Oconer vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (open or active) 14.) 2018 - Avner Greenwald vs. Ripple, XRP II, Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ben Lawsky (California) (open or active) @Pablo @Snoopy @zerpdigger @vlad_got_it @Mrsrippley @Sebastian @xrpisking
  8. In fact, two (2) new lawsuits were filed against Ripple Labs, Inc. within the last week, both citing securities related issues in their complaints (see attached photo). The law.com article needs to be updated to four lawsuits, not three. David Oconer vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) - filed on 6/27/2018 Avner Greenwald vs. Ripple, XRP II, Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ben Lawsky (California) - filed on 7/3/2018 It's not over either. More lawsuits more likely than not to be filed against Ripple Labs, Inc. due to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision (Cyan v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund). Check out this older post of mine below. I talk about that Supreme Court decision there. https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/23224-ripple-sued-for-securities-violations/?page=9&tab=comments#comment-386239 Hang on, guys. They'll get through this. @Pablo @Snoopy @zerpdigger @vlad_got_it @Mrsrippley @Sebastian @xrpisking
  9. Guys, Not sure about you, but it feels like every other day a new lawsuit is filed against Ripple. So, in the interest of keeping everything straight and knowing where Ripple (company) is with each court or legal case, avoiding the FUD, below is a list of every lawsuit Ripple Labs, Inc. has been involved with in the U.S. court system, all in chronological order since the company's inception in 2012. The open or active cases are in bold. 1.) 2014 - Ripple vs. LaCore Enterprises (closed or not active) 2.) 2015 - Ripple vs. Kefi Labs (closed or not active) 3.) 2015 - Arthur Britto vs. Jed McCaleb (closed or not active)** 4.) 2016 - Bitstamp vs. Ripple, Jed McCaleb, Stellar (closed or not active) 5.) 2016 - Ripple vs. Pixel Labs (closed or not active) 6.) 2017 - R3 vs. Ripple (Delaware) (closed or not active) 7.) 2017 - Ripple and XRP II vs. R3 (California) (open or active; on appeal) 8.) 2017 - R3 vs. Ripple (New York) (open or active) 9.) 2017 - Tony Petrucci vs. Ripple (closed or not active) 10.) 2018 - Ryan Coffey vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (open or active) 11.) 2018 - Ryan Coffey vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (U.S. Federal Court) (open or active) 12.) 2018 - Vladi Zakinov vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (open or active) * Case did not involve Ripple Labs, Inc. per se, but it was a dispute involving the technology, the creation of the Stellar, etc. Lastly, here are a few fun facts for you today. 1.) Google was founded in 1998. A little over 6 years after Google was formed, it appears the company was involved in over 40+ federal court or legal cases. This does not include any lawsuits filed against Google in any state courts.** 2.) Airbnb was founded in 2008. A little over 6 years after Airbnb formed, it appears company was involved in over 20+ federal court or legal cases. This does not include any lawsuits filed against Airbnb in any state courts.** 3.) Uber was founded in 2009. A little over 6 years after Uber was formed, it appears company was involved in over 100+ federal court or legal cases. This does not include any lawsuits filed against Uber in any state courts.** ** data is from https://www.pacer.gov/ Hang in there. Disruption breeds legal challenges. More lawsuits to come. Later. cc: @Pablo @Snoopy @zerpdigger @vlad_got_it @Mrsrippley @Sebastian @xrpisking
  10. No surprise here, guys. A recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court (Cyan v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund) earlier this year more likely than not opened the flood gates and we will probably see an increase in the overall number of securities class action lawsuits across the county, especially in this cryptocurrency and blockchain space. One lawsuit was already filed against Ripple Labs, Inc. in California on this very issue (Ryan Coffey v. Ripple Labs, Inc. and Brad Garlinghouse), and more likely than not, there will be another lawsuit filed in the state of New York by Scott + Scott Attorneys. Check out my post below. Went into detail on this issue about a month ago. Ha, what interests me the most though is that in theory, one state (e.g., California) could rule that XRP is a security and one state (e.g., New York) could rule that XRP is not a security (conflicting views or rulings). All that to say, Ripple Labs, Inc. will be ready to go to court and defend their position. Stay tuned.
  11. @Pablo, as of yesterday (6/4/2018), Ripple Labs, Inc. and Brad G. have not filed a response in court to the original complaint filed by Ryan Coffey in early May. Going to hold off on commenting on this case until both Ripple and BG file an answer. I want to see what they have to say (legally) in response to the complaint. Stay tuned, tag you when that post goes up (hopefully soon).
  12. Hey Guys, We were all made aware of Xpring a few weeks ago. No surprise here. Ripple Labs, Inc. filed a trademark to protect the word mark "Xpring" on May 18, 2018. Check out the filing below and how Ripple Labs, Inc. described Xpring within their intellectual property or trademark. Glad they did this. This filing marks the 51st trademark Ripple Labs, Inc. has filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office since its inception in 2012. 45 of the 51 trademarks are "active," whereas six (6) of the 51 trademarks are marked "dead" or were abandoned by the company (e.g., "Ripple Communications"). Ripple Labs, Inc. also has one (1) patent filed with the U.S. office as well. Excited for them. Keep adding more to the IP portfolio. Later.
  13. Thought the same thing from a jurisdictional standpoint. Before one can even get to trial, the court must be able to hear the case. In the U.S., if a court does not have jurisdiction, that court cannot hear the case. This applies to federal courts and state courts. After doing some research, there was a recent 2018 U.S. Supreme Court Case that is less than 2 months old (Cyan v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund). Basically, the Supreme Court held that state courts (e.g., California, where this case is filed) have the jurisdiction to hear U.S. securities related court cases, in state court, not federal court; the precedent set gives state courts jurisdiction to rule on federal securities law, along with their own state level securities laws. What does that mean? Well, this recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court will more likely than not open the flood gates and will increase the overall number of securities class action lawsuits that will not be dismissed from state court any longer (and go into federal court), and instead, state courts can and will be ruling on federal law moving forward (unless Congress "makes a patch" and changes the law; not sure you can rely on them right now). Arguably, this won't be the last lawsuit filed against Ripple Labs for the same cause of action and securities related issue or issues, all because of this most recent Cyan ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. What if? What if another lawsuit in New York is filed? Same facts, different plaintiff and attorney. Now what? Let's say this case moves forward and this California court rules that XRP is not a security. However, the court in New York moves their case forward and rules that XRP is a security. Then what? That is where we are at right now. That is what this Cyan v. Beaver County case means. Everyone here can make fun of the plaintiff and the attorney that filed the case, provide their input as to whether or not XRP is or is not a security, but this case is legitimate and needs to be taken seriously. The attorney will more likely than not take a back seat as "second chair" and shop this case out to a law firm that knows what they are doing (security law wise), and that law firm will be the lead attorney and take the case from there. That is not a knock on him, just the reality. And, brilliantly enough, he will probably make a name for himself (arguably, he already has). https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/race-to-the-state-courthouse-how-the-62544/ @TheXRPer @OzAlphaWolf @Pablo @zerpdigger @Snoopy @vlad_got_it @Hodor
  14. Does the plaintiff, Ryan Coffey, work for Wells Fargo? Wonder if this is the same guy?
  15. Again, according to Ripple's legal team, R3 is refusing to produce the operating agreements of R3 HoldCo LLC and Distributed Ledger Group, LLC. Now, as promised, after looking into the Distributed Ledger Group, LLC, the entity is filed in Delaware (and is still active). However, in October 2017, David Rutter of R3 signed a certification of cancellation for Distributed Ledger Group, LLC in California, meaning R3 "wound up" or closed down the entity, for Distributed Ledger Group, LLC no longer plans on operating or doing business in California. Interesting development.
×