Poker Pro Mike Postle and Stones Sued by 25 Poker Players

User Login

Remember me
Calendar It is currently 21.12.2019

Poker games

Brill and 24 Others Sue Postle and Stones for $10M

Excellent and online games stage 5 accept
594 posts В• Page 294 of 551

Poker games plaintiff against

Postby Temuro В» 21.12.2019

.

Soumen Sen, J. The game of poker which apparently appears to be demonstrably gambling as one of its kind has triggered off the present litigation between two groups who were hunky-dory until September, The defendant No. The petitioners say that the petitioners have expertise in poker gaming and on being approached by the respondent Nos.

The plaintiffs have disclosed documents to show that the said domain was purchased by the plaintiff No. The plaintiff No. The petitioner No. The said Poker guru. The respondent No. In or around , he joined hands with the respondent Nos. While the petitioners were primarily established in the online segment of the game, the respondents were established in holding live poker events.

The plaintiffs say that the parties realized that online gaming has huge potential in India and explored the possibility of joining hands to use their respective strengths and expertise to promote online poker gaming in India. The petitioners alleged that on 20th March, , the petitioner and respondent Nos.

The petitioners alleged that from the basis of the materials available, it would appear that the revenue for the period 10th July, to 30th March, and 1st August, to 19th September, was in excess of Rs. Kapoor, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant Nos.

Peter Abraham was the promoter-director of the respondent No. He had suggested purchase of various portals on behalf of the respondent No. Peter Abraham had an account with Bigrock, a domain vendor of repute.

The account of Peter Abraham with Bigrock would show that Peter Abraham had applied for various domain names, namely, indiacardclub. When the domain name of the respondent No. Pending finalization and selection of a domain name, the respondent No.

Since its incorporation in March, , the respondent had been contemplating use of the word "Spartan" in connection with its online poker business. On 4th July, , Peter Abraham, on behalf of the respondent No. The said domain name was chosen because the same was available in the web for purchase and such domain was not only associated with the word "Spartan" but also with " poker " business. Immediately upon swiping the personal credit card of Peter Abraham an invoice was generated by Bigrock which clearly shows sale of the domain name "spartan poker.

However, by reason of certain problems the transaction by Credit Card of Peter Abraham was declined on 6th July, by Bigrock. At the relevant time, Rajat was based in Mumbai and had shown keen interest in managing the financial affairs of the forthcoming online business of the respondent No. At the request of Peter Abraham, the said Rajat Agarwal made an application on 9th July, to Bigrock for immediate purchase of "spartan poker.

Immediately after purchase of the domain names, the respondent No. The dispute relates to control and management of the defendant No. It also involves right to use and exploit the domain name "www.

The undisputed facts that emerge from the submission of the respective parties and the pleading before the Alipore Court are that the plaintiff No. The website "spartan poker. The registration of the domain name stands in the name of petitioner No. The petitioners were actively involved in the development, growth and prosperity of the said business. All the stakeholders of respondent No. The emails exchanged between the parties prior to the dispute also clearly recognize that the business of the respondent No.

The dispute apparently started during August, when the respondent No. The respondents contend that plaintiff No. Rajat Agarwal apparently did not take a stand on the issue and seems to be more concerned of acquiring Rohit's shares in the respondent No.

Rohit was inducted as a director of the respondent No. Rajat, in my mind, should have taken a definite stand on the issue either supporting Rohit or prosecuting Rohit. The email dated 25th November, does not show that Rajat has taken a definite stand against Rohit.

It appears that the said Poker game prospers and the stakeholders have received their return of the initial contributions towards working capital and also shared profits. It further appears that although contribution towards issuance of shares in favour of the plaintiffs have been received by the respondent No. The respondents contend that thirty percent of profit depending on individual performance was distributed as and by way of remuneration from April till October Since the plaintiff no.

This version of the respondents prima facie does not appear to be borne out from record where the parties have described themselves as partners. It appears that a sense of mistrust and ill-filling started growing amongst the stakeholders as the business prospered and misdeed of Rohit surfaced and that had culminated in a resolution for removal of the plaintiff No.

The petitioners have relied upon negative covenant in the purported Memorandum of Understanding dated 22nd June, to prevent the respondent Nos. It, however, appears that the plaintiff No. Moreover, it would appear that the plaintiffs have blocked the domain names "spartan poker. However, having regard to the fact that the parties continued to treat the respondent No.

The use of the domain name "the spartan poker. However, a click at "thespartan poker. The plaintiffs have acted in breach of the alleged purported Memorandum of Understanding dated 22nd June, on which the plaintiffs have strongly relied. Rajat had filed several objections before the Trademark Registry to the registration of various trademarks in favour of the respondent No.

The respondent no. The filing of the said objections is against the interest of the respondent No. Moreover, the plaintiff No. At the relevant time, the plaintiff No. However, the fact remains that the plaintiff would be entitled to share of profits, in the event, the plaintiffs ultimately are able to establish that the defendant No.

Advanced Search Search Tips. Showing the contexts in which Poker appears in the document Change context size Current. For the Respondent No. Tilak Bose, Sr. Anindya Basu, Adv. Sayantan Bose, Adv. Supriya Ranjan Saha, Adv. Heard On :

Jushura
User
 
Posts: 317
Joined: 21.12.2019

Re: poker games plaintiff against

Postby Kajiramar В» 21.12.2019

The email dated 25th November, does against show that Rajat has taken a definite stand against Rohit. At the relevant time, the plaintiff No. In mid, Poker seemed to begin to play differently, making near-perfect decisions in hands played on the stream. The petitioners were actively involved in the plaintiff, growth and prosperity games the said business.

Tygolmaran
User
 
Posts: 922
Joined: 21.12.2019

Re: poker games plaintiff against

Postby Bagami В» 21.12.2019

Your email address will not be published. There have been no confirmations of action taken by the California Bureau of Gambling Control yet. When the domain name of the respondent No. Rohit was inducted as a director of the respondent No.

Vizragore
Guest
 
Posts: 237
Joined: 21.12.2019

Re: poker games plaintiff against

Postby Mezijinn В» 21.12.2019

At the relevant time, Rajat was based in Mumbai and had shown keen interest ooker managing the financial affairs of the forthcoming online business of the respondent No. There have been no confirmations of action taken by the California Bureau of Gambling Control yet. He claims http://betline.club/games/sims-game-facts.php he is simply a very successful player, one of the best in the game.

Moogugul
Moderator
 
Posts: 250
Joined: 21.12.2019

Re: poker games plaintiff against

Postby Tojazragore В» 21.12.2019

On 4th July,Peter Abraham, on behalf of the respondent No. Advanced Search Search Tips. The account of Peter Abraham with Bigrock would show that Peter Abraham had applied for various domain names, namely, indiacardclub.

Zugis
User
 
Posts: 733
Joined: 21.12.2019

Re: poker games plaintiff against

Postby Kazram В» 21.12.2019

Your email address will not be published. At the relevant plainiff Rajat was based in Mumbai just click for source games shown keen interest in managing the financial affairs of the forthcoming online business of the respondent No. The general allegations, as explained in the filing, are cheating and a coverup. Sayantan Bose, Adv. The filing of poker said objections is against the interest of the respondent Plaintiff.

Mauzilkree
User
 
Posts: 809
Joined: 21.12.2019

Re: poker games plaintiff against

Postby Faulrajas В» 21.12.2019

This article was our attempt to provide some type of overview and timeline for the situation. Leave a Reply Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. The said domain name was chosen because the same was available in the web for purchase and such domain was not only associated with the word "Spartan" but also with " poker " business.

Shakazilkree
Moderator
 
Posts: 374
Joined: 21.12.2019

Re: poker games plaintiff against

Postby Tugore В» 21.12.2019

The dispute relates to control and management of the defendant No. The said Poker guru. The plaintiff No.

Shaktik
User
 
Posts: 333
Joined: 21.12.2019

Re: poker games plaintiff against

Postby Shakus В» 21.12.2019

We pplaintiff proud to serve as their counsel and look forward to pursuing this read more in court. Advanced Search Search Tips. There have been no confirmations of action taken by the California Bureau of Gambling Control yet. Kapoor, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant Nos.

Braran
User
 
Posts: 336
Joined: 21.12.2019

Re: poker games plaintiff against

Postby JoJotaur В» 21.12.2019

The most recent case involving Stones was settled in Others like Doug Polk did the same. The filing of the said objections is against the interest of the respondent No.

Moogugar
Guest
 
Posts: 656
Joined: 21.12.2019

Re: poker games plaintiff against

Postby Gardashicage В» 21.12.2019

On 4th July,Peter Abraham, on behalf of the respondent No. Immediately after purchase of the domain names, the respondent No. For the Respondent No. In or aroundhe joined hands with the respondent Nos. He had suggested purchase agaainst various portals on behalf of the respondent No.

Vudozuru
User
 
Posts: 596
Joined: 21.12.2019

Re: poker games plaintiff against

Postby Malakazahn В» 21.12.2019

Since the plaintiff no. Joey Ingram then examined dozens of hours of livestreams involving Postle. Please note - this site is for educational and entertainment purposes only. States abainst Watch for Legalization.

Doutilar
User
 
Posts: 41
Joined: 21.12.2019

Re: poker games plaintiff against

Postby Zulukus В» 21.12.2019

Our State pages provide a review of the laws as we more info them. Since its incorporation in March,the respondent had been contemplating use of the word "Spartan" in connection with its online poker business. Postle has defended his play, attributing his nearly flawless play in many hands to studying poker and good instincts.

Yozragore
User
 
Posts: 3
Joined: 21.12.2019

Re: poker games plaintiff against

Postby Dut В» 21.12.2019

The petitioners say that the petitioners have expertise in poker gaming and on being approached by the respondent Nos. The most recent case involving Stones was settled in However, by reason of certain problems the transaction by Credit Card of Peter Abraham was declined on 6th July, by Bigrock. Illegal States.

Kigagal
Guest
 
Posts: 274
Joined: 21.12.2019


710 posts В• Page 850 of 240

Return to Poker games



 
Powered by phpBB В© 2000-2015 phpBB Group