Court Allows Blockchain.com’s Trademark Lawsuit Against Paymium to Proceed

Clash of ledgers: ’s trademark lawsuit against Paymium continues


Source: cointelegraph
Court Allows Blockchain.com’s Trademark Lawsuit Against Paymium to Proceed

Related posts

Court: Craig Wright’s Motion for Judgment in Kleiman v. Wright is “Non-Credible”

Coinspeaker
Court: Craig Wright’s Motion for Judgment in Kleiman v. Wright is “Non-Credible”

According to a filing from August 15, Florida judge denied a request made by to scamper a lawsuit filed against him because of his past testimony and his credibility before the court.

Just remind you what’s this all about. Back in February 2018, the crypto entrepreneur and self-proclaimed Bitcoin inventor Craig Wright was sued for allegedly misappropriating billions of dollars’ worth of crypto estate. Ira Kleiman then sued Wright on behalf of the estate owned by his brother, the late Dave Kleiman.

The suit states that Wright schemed to grab Dave’s Bitcoins and his rights to a specific intellectual property linked with the Bitcoin technology. Kleiman is seeking the return of 1.1 million Bitcoins mined by the two or its fair current market value. He also seeks compensation for extensive IP infringement.

Wright has also filed court documents in an effort to show that he held a trust deed with the estate. Lawyer Stephen Palley claimed that these documents were faked in virtue of the document’s metadata. He said the original document uses a Microsoft font that was copyrighted in 2015, while the document is from 2012.

In June, Craig Wright admitted that he could not comply with a court order to list his early BTC addresses. According to him, he cannot easily retrieve the data because he shared a critical component for accessing the funds and wallets with Kleiman prior to his death.

Wright tried to present some pieces of evidence of the existence of any additional members of one of the plaintiffs, a firm named “W&K Info Defense Research, LLC” (“W&K). He claimed that their existence could prove that the court did not have sufficient evidence. However, he didn’t succeed in this. So, according to the court, “the Defendant has failed to present any credible evidence showing that any of the parties he suggests are members of W&K.”

The Court also noted that the Wright made several conflicting statements regarding even his own ownership of W&K:

“At the Hearing, Defendant argued that the Court cannot both rely upon and find that the statements and evidence provided by himare untrue. SeeECF No. [256], at 100:6-9 (“Judge, if everything’s a lie, then thestuff they rely on when Wright files a contract, or when Wrightmakes a statement, can’t be credited either.”).”

Judge called Wright’s argument “a novel”. She said Wright seems to be arguing that even though his numerous conflicting statements are the very reason confusion has been created as to the ownership of W&K, the Court should nonetheless use these statements as a basis to challenge the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

She added:

“In essence, the Defendant uses the evidence proffered as both his sword and his shield. Unfortunately, the record is replete with instances in which the Defendant has proffered conflicting sworn testimony before this Court. In weighing the evidence, the Court simply does not find the Defendant’s testimony to be credible. As for the remaining “extrinsic evidence,” none of the evidence demonstrates additional membership in W&K other than Dave Kleiman.”

In short, Wright’s motion to dismiss is denied. This case will remain in Florida federal court and Twitter, of course, went nuts.

British entrepreneur and investor Alistair Milne said:

Some even compared it to Putin’s statements:

While eToro‘s Mati Greenspan showed his opinion in the comments below:

Court: Craig Wright’s Motion for Judgment in Kleiman v. Wright is “Non-Credible”


Source: coinspeaker
Court: Craig Wright’s Motion for Judgment in Kleiman v. Wright is “Non-Credible”

Related posts

Court Denies Craig Wright’s Motion for Judgment in Kleiman V. Wright

The judge overseeing Kleiman V. has denied ’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, meaning the case will proceed


Source: cointelegraph
Court Denies Craig Wright’s Motion for Judgment in Kleiman V. Wright

Related posts

US Court Temporarily Freezes $8M in Response to SEC Request Yesterday

U.S. district has approved of the temporary freeze on $8 million of a New York citizen and two of his entities’ related assets following the U.S. SEC


Source: cointelegraph
US Court Temporarily Freezes M in Response to SEC Request Yesterday

Related posts

Indian Supreme Court Heard Crypto Case in Depth Today

The finally heard the crypto case today after postponing it several times. The addressed the government’s crypto policy as well as the writ petitions challenging the banking restriction by the central bank. The latter was
Source: devcoins
Indian Supreme Court Heard Crypto Case in Depth Today

Related posts

Indian Supreme Court Heard Crypto Case in Depth Today

Indian Supreme Court Heard Crypto Case in Depth Today

The finally heard the crypto case today after postponing it several times. The addressed the government’s crypto policy as well as the writ petitions challenging the banking restriction by the central bank. The latter was heard in some detail while the former was further delayed at the request of the government.

Also read: G20 Leaders Issue Declaration on Crypto Assets – A Look at Their Commitments

Supreme Court Heard RBI Ban Case Today

The Supreme Court of India addressed two crypto-related issues Thursday after repeatedly postponing hearing them. The first issue concerns the banking restriction by the central bank. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) issued a circular in April last year banning regulated financial institutions from providing services to crypto businesses.

According to Crypto Kanoon, an Indian platform for crypto regulatory news and analysis, the provisions of the RBI Act and the Banking Regulation Act, along with the circular in question, were all analyzed in court to ascertain whether the central bank has the power to impose such a ban. The “RBI is only a delegatee of power which cannot exercise [the] same powers as Parliament which has a direct impact on legitimate businesses,” the platform conveyed.

Indian Supreme Court Heard Crypto Case in Depth Today

The counsel for crypto exchanges argued that the “RBI restricting banks from providing services to crypto [businesses] is a colorable exercise in the guise of consumer interest. It can exercise power in public interest only to the extent as provided under law such as interest of depositors, borrowers etc,” Crypto Kanoon detailed. The counsel showed the court that crypto exchanges have suffered losses due to the banking ban including a decrease in the number of users. The court further asked about companies and businesses that were shut down due to the banking restriction. “Why can’t you work without [a] bank?” the court continued to ask. The counsel explained that “Any settlement taking place will be converted into cash,” the platform conveyed, elaborating:

Technology underlying the and crypto is being explained to the Hon’ble judges … Manner in which other countries have treated cryptos has been discussed.

In addition, the counsel argued that cryptocurrency “must not be equated to sovereign currency i.e., rupee etc,” emphasizing that the former is a commodity while the latter a currency. Crypto Kanoon added that Thursday’s hearing ended with the court setting a follow-up date to resume hearing the case on Aug. 14.

Indian Supreme Court Heard Crypto Case in Depth Today

Government’s Crypto Policy Hearing Delayed

The second issue the supreme court addressed Thursday relates to the government’s policy on cryptocurrency. Crypto Kanoon reported that the Indian government “submitted [a] draft regulation before the court which was submitted to it by [the] Garg committee,” adding:

Govt. requested the court to adjourn the matter till January as it intends to introduce the bill in Parliament in [the] winter session.

Indian Supreme Court Heard Crypto Case in Depth Today
Subhash Chandra Garg

The Garg committee is the interministerial committee (IMC) constituted on Nov. 2, 2017, under the chairmanship of former Secretary of the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) Subhash Chandra Garg, to study all aspects of cryptocurrency and provide recommendations. It has representation from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the RBI, the Securities and Exchange Board of India, and Central Board of Direct Taxes.

Year-Long Efforts to End RBI Ban

Soon after the RBI issued the aforementioned circular, a number of industry stakeholders filed writ petitions challenging the banking restriction. The ban went into effect in July last year and banks subsequently closed accounts of crypto exchanges. The Indian supreme court was scheduled to hear all crypto-related petitions in September last year, but the case was repeatedly postponed.

Indian Supreme Court Heard Crypto Case in Depth Today

The lack of banking access has caused a number of crypto businesses to shut down, including at least four crypto exchanges. Zebpay, formerly one of the largest crypto exchanges in India, closed down its local exchange operations in September last year. Earlier this year, Coindelta announced its shutdown, followed by Coinome, Koinex, and Cryptokart. Gaurang Poddar, founder of Cryptokart, explained that since the RBI ban took effect, “The general interest in crypto in India has tanked. Also since the government isn’t going to introduce any regulations and leave it grey for a while, it just makes any long term planning difficult.”

Regulatory Uncertainty

The Indian government is currently deliberating on the country’s crypto policy. The IMC report submitted to the finance ministry was made public on July 22. The report, however, is dated Feb. 28. It contains the committee’s recommendations regarding crypto assets as well as a draft bill entitled Banning of Cryptocurrency and Regulation of Official Digital Currency Bill 2019.

Garg tweeted after the report was made public that his “Committee is very receptive and supportive of distributed ledger technologies … [but] Private cryptocurrencies are of no real value. Rightly banned.” Noting “extreme fluctuations” in prices of cryptocurrencies, the committee believes that “private cryptocurrencies should not be allowed,” stating:

The committee has recommended a law banning the cryptocurrencies in India and criminalizing carrying on of any activities connected with cryptocurrencies in India.

Soon after the report was published, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi reshuffled his top-level bureaucrats and removed Garg from the DEA Secretary position, shifting him to the Power Ministry. Garg is reportedly unhappy with this shift and subsequently applied for voluntary retirement.

Indian Supreme Court Heard Crypto Case in Depth Today
Indian Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman

The Ministry of Finance revealed on July 22 that the IMC report is being examined “in consultation with all the concerned departments and regulatory authorities before the government takes a final decision.” Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman has seen the presentation by the committee but she recently admitted that she had not looked at the report and bill in detail. “They have gone much ahead of all other countries that have thought about it. It’s a very futuristic and well-thought-out report. I have not spent time on it after the presentation,” she told the Economic Times in an interview.

Meanwhile, the Indian crypto community has ramped up efforts to engage lawmakers to show them how flawed the IMC report is in hopes that the government will not go ahead with the draft bill to ban cryptocurrencies.

Crypto Not Prohibited, Tax Laws Applicable

While the government is deliberating on the country’s crypto policy, the tax department has been sending a long list of probing questions to cryptocurrency owners. Anoush Bhasin, founder of Quagmire Consulting which specializes in crypto tax solutions, explained to news.Bitcoin.com Tuesday that “Not complying with the notice or furnishing incomplete / inaccurate information may lead to the taxman conducting a Search & Seizure operation.”

He emphasized: “Tax laws in India are applicable irrespective of the legal status of income … Even if a ban is introduced, taxes would continue to apply to crypto income and it would not stop the taxman from chasing unaccounted or untaxed income earned from dealing in crypto assets.”

In the meantime, cryptocurrency is currently not prohibited in India, Union Minister of State for Finance and Corporate Affairs Anurag Singh Thakur has confirmed.

What do you think of the supreme court hearing today? Do you think the court will lift the RBI ban? Let know in the comments section below.


Images courtesy of Shutterstock and the Indian government.


Did you know you can buy and sell BCH privately using our noncustodial, peer-to-peer Local Bitcoin Cash trading platform? The Local.Bitcoin.com marketplace has thousands of participants from all around the world trading BCH right now. And if you need a bitcoin wallet to securely store your coins, you can download one from us here.

The post Indian Supreme Court Heard Crypto Case in Depth Today appeared first on Bitcoin News.


Source: bitcoin.com
Indian Supreme Court Heard Crypto Case in Depth Today

Related posts

Court Rejects Coinbase Attempt to Dismiss BCH Negligence Claims

will face the buyers’ negligence claims and the also denied its motion to move the case to arbitration.
Source: financemagnates
Court Rejects Coinbase Attempt to Dismiss BCH Negligence Claims

Related posts

In a 130-page court filing, Kik claims the SEC’s lawsuit ‘twists’ the facts about its online token – TechCrunch

In a 130-page court filing, Kik claims the SEC’s lawsuit ‘twists’ the facts about its online token – TechCrunch submitted by /u/-Cash
[link] [comments]


Source: CryptoCurrency
In a 130-page court filing, Kik claims the SEC’s lawsuit ‘twists’ the facts about its online token – TechCrunch

Related posts

California Court Dismisses Fraud Charges Against Coinbase

The value of BCH spiked in December 2017 with its listing on .
Source: financemagnates
California Court Dismisses Fraud Charges Against Coinbase

Related posts

Court rules for Roger Ver in Craig Wright’s Satoshi defamation lawsuit

Bitcoin SV creator Craig Wright claimed that he created Bitcoin as Satoshi Nakamoto—Bitcoin Cash founder Roger Ver called him a fraud. The two took the matter to , and today, England’s high ruled in favor of Ver.

’s litigious rampage

In April, Craig Wright invoked the wrath of the Bitcoin community by threatening legal action against a host of people claiming he was a fraud (for claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto).

The incident began with Hodlonaut, the founder of the Lightning Network Trust Chain and a longstanding Bitcoin advocate. The astronautical feline denounced Wright as a fraud, and in response Craig Wright threatened legal action.

Wright’s legal threat enraged the Bitcoin community, with many rallying behind Hodlonaut. Many in the community performed acts of solidarity, such as changing their profile picture and Twitter handles to match Hodlonaut’s to obfuscate the cat’s identity.

Other high-profile crypto advocates also solidified their positions, publicly calling Craig Wright a fraud for his unsubstantiated claims of being the person behind the Satoshi Nakamoto alias. Figures such as Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin, podcaster Peter McCormack, and hundreds of others called Wright a fraud.

One other figurehead who called Wright a fraud was his former partner, the founder of Bitcoin Cash Ver. Previously, the two had a falling out that resulted in a split that created Bitcoin SV during the famous hash wars.

On Apr. 15, 2019, Roger Ver’s website Bitcoin.com posted (a now redacted) video, which in short, said Craig Wright fraudulently claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto. Ver went a step further, publicly calling Wright a fraud on his personal Twitter on May 3, and goading Wright to sue him.

Taking the matter to court

In response to the message, the Bitcoin SV founder took the matter to the England and Wales High Court, Queen’s Bench Division. Wright claimed that his reputation was materially damaged by Roger Ver’s defamatory statements.

“The defamatory attacks by Roger Ver damaged my integrity within the United Kingdom’s community of business people with whom I primarily deal. Being labelled a fraud has a repellent effect with regard to future business—if people view me as a fraud, my proficiency as a computer scientist as well as my life’s work will be called into question. Moreover, no one would reasonably enter into business dealings with someone thought to be a fraud,” said Wright in the court documents.

In addition to Ver’s supposedly defamatory remarks, Wright claims that it encouraged others to participate in damaging remarks, citing one tweet in particular.

Taking the trial to the United States

However, the British court determined that the U.K. was not the appropriate venue for the lawsuit. Based on the audience of the Bitcoin youTube Channel and Roger Ver’s Twitter account, the overwhelming majority of viewers were based in the United States, followed by the United Kingdom.

Even though Craig Wright had moved from Australia to the U.K. with his family in 2015, and intends to apply for British citizenship, the court deemed that Wright had a “global” reputation in line with the global nature of Bitcoin.

Instead, the statements from the judge may suggest that the U.S. would be a more appropriate place to decide the lawsuit. Roger Ver consented to taking the lawsuit to the United States, said the court documents. CryptoSlate reached out to Roger Ver for comment on the matter and has yet to receive a response.

Little evidence that Craig Wright’s reputation was damaged

The judge also stated there Craig Wright did not sufficiently prove his reputation was harmed. As Roger Ver’s counsel aptly argued:

“Specifically, there is no evidence at all of any actual reputational harm that the Claimant [Wright] has suffered as a result of any of the Defendant’s [Ver’s] publications.”

The judge more or less agreed with the counsel’s statement.

“There is no objective evidence of any harm to reputation in England and Wales. The Claimant [Wright] has failed completely to address whether and to what extent the publications complained of have harmed his reputation in other jurisdictions. The evidence demonstrates clearly that the Claimant enjoys a global reputation, the vast majority of which was generated before he moved to the UK. It is impossible for the Claimant to divide his reputation into neat jurisdictions; it is clearly global.”

And, more conclusively from the judge:

“In my judgment, the Claimant’s evidence as to the extent of harm that the publications have caused (or are likely to cause) is weak, lacks detail and [Craig Wright’s claims] put forward evidence at a level of generality that is almost entirely speculative.”

Craig Wright is engaged in several other lawsuits hinging around his supposed status as Satoshi Nakamoto. Based on the evidence so far, it seems unlikely that these cases will go in Wright’s favor until he can conclusively prove he is not fraudulently claiming to be Satoshi.

The post Court rules for Roger Ver in Craig Wright’s Satoshi defamation lawsuit appeared first on CryptoSlate.


Source: cryptoslate
Court rules for Roger Ver in Craig Wright’s Satoshi defamation lawsuit

Related posts