Posted 07/11/2013 12:22 pm
If this is the suit youre referring too (http://dockets.justia.com/docket/ca...782/533820/) it was dismissed with prejudice it seems after two failed attempts. To me it sounds a lot like someone was trying to bust up PCGS or run David Hall out of business and get rid of the competition. I dont know anyone that goes strickly off PCGS price guides, but there may be a little more I only skimmed the actual briefs filed.
You can read a little bit more about it here http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2012/12...nt-wore.html
As kind of an unimportant side note David Hall and Collectors Universe were fined 500 dollars for trying to recover their lawyer fees after winning with an improper claim.
Heres a pretty good power point describing it:
You can read a little bit more about it here http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2012/12...nt-wore.html
As kind of an unimportant side note David Hall and Collectors Universe were fined 500 dollars for trying to recover their lawyer fees after winning with an improper claim.
Heres a pretty good power point describing it:
Quote:
•Dominick v. Collectors Universe, Inc.
, 2012 WL 6618616 (C.D. Cal.)
- "
Plaintiffs are individual rare coin dealer and corporation he owns that sells rare coins
- "
Defendants are individual rare coin dealer and business he owns or operates in the coin
industry including real time coin trading website and coin grading /rating service
- "
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants engaged in numerous acts to establish their control over the
realtime coin trading market including alleged allocation and exclusive dealing agreements as
well as price fixing.
- "
In Complaint, Plaintiffs asserted the individual defendant engaged in false advertising by
claiming that coins were "valued accurately and impartially" and that statement was not true
due illegal price fixing
- "
The False Advertising Lanham Act Claim was asserted only against the individual defendant, not
the website or the grading/rating service
- "
The Court dismissed the false advertising with prejudice
- "
12(b)(6)
•Plaintiffs lack standing to assert a Lanham Act claim against the Individual
•That the individual owns and operates the corporate defendants "is not to say that
he made the false statements"
•As a result, Plaintiffs must allege that any misrepresentations hindered their ability to
compete with Defendant entities
•(Court noted repeated failures to cure pleading deficiencies)
•Dominick v. Collectors Universe, Inc.
, 2012 WL 6618616 (C.D. Cal.)
- "
Plaintiffs are individual rare coin dealer and corporation he owns that sells rare coins
- "
Defendants are individual rare coin dealer and business he owns or operates in the coin
industry including real time coin trading website and coin grading /rating service
- "
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants engaged in numerous acts to establish their control over the
realtime coin trading market including alleged allocation and exclusive dealing agreements as
well as price fixing.
- "
In Complaint, Plaintiffs asserted the individual defendant engaged in false advertising by
claiming that coins were "valued accurately and impartially" and that statement was not true
due illegal price fixing
- "
The False Advertising Lanham Act Claim was asserted only against the individual defendant, not
the website or the grading/rating service
- "
The Court dismissed the false advertising with prejudice
- "
12(b)(6)
•Plaintiffs lack standing to assert a Lanham Act claim against the Individual
•That the individual owns and operates the corporate defendants "is not to say that
he made the false statements"
•As a result, Plaintiffs must allege that any misrepresentations hindered their ability to
compete with Defendant entities
•(Court noted repeated failures to cure pleading deficiencies)
Edited by basebal21
07/11/2013 12:27 pm
07/11/2013 12:27 pm
