ADM F. 500 (Rev. 03/22) Order and Judgment
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
RIDGEWAY FINANCIAL BANKING
HOLDINGS )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-348
Plaintiff
v.
IBM03, BANK OF RIDGEWAY,
XNICKGAMERYTX
Defendant
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
I have decided to dismiss this case by motion of the defense for the reasons that follow.
BACKGROUND
This is a summary of the alleged facts. On January 29th, 2022, Mr. Samianz12 registered the “Bank of
Ridgeway” with the Department of State (which I will refer to in these reasons as “Mr. Samianz12’s Bank”).
This was registered as a sole proprietorship. Later, Mr. Samianz12 put his Bank under the management of
another one of his companies, Ridgeway Financial Banking Holdings. As the Secretary of State, Mr. ibm03 was
responsible for the decision to register the company. On April 16th, 2022, Mr. xNickGamerYTx registered a
different company, also called “Bank of Ridgeway” (“Mr. xNickGamerYTx’s Bank”). However, Mr.
Samianz12’s Bank has not begun to do business yet — interested parties may merely invest in the Bank via the
Ridgeway Financial Banking Holdings corporation. Mr. Samianz12’s Bank used the name “Bank of Ridgeway”
in earnings reports and is listed in the “Shareholder Register” as a subsidiary of the Ridgeway Financial
Banking Holdings corporation. The plaintiff asserts that Mr. xNickGamerYTx’s Bank infringes upon Mr.
Samianz12’s Bank’s exclusive right to operate their corporation under the name “Bank of Ridgeway”, and that
Mr. Samianz12’s Bank has a common law trademark on the name “Bank of Ridgeway”.
The position of the plaintiff is that the Secretary of State, Mr. ibm03, acted in a manner that was
“arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” when he approved the
registration of Mr. xNickGamerYTx’s Bank. The plaintiff submits that common law established the “Bank of
Ridgeway” trademark when Mr. Samianz12 posted earnings reports using the name “Bank of Ridgeway”, and
listed “Bank of Ridgeway” in the “Shareholder Register” of the Ridgeway Financial Banking Holdings
corporation. The defense contends that no concrete injury has been asserted by the petitioner, and that there is
no valid cause of action because the Secretary of State is entitled to sovereign immunity (one of the named
defendants). Further, the defense submits that even if a cause of action existed, the Secretary of State did not
“impede on [the Plaintiff’s] rights” as required under 1 R. Stat. § 216 — the type of claim upon which the
plaintiff relies for this Court to provide relief concerning government agency actions (specifically, with regard
to the case against Mr. ibm03). Finally, the defense argues that the legal concept of trademarks do not exist in
the State of Ridgeway.
ANALYSIS
I will begin by addressing the last claim of the defense. Trademarks are a concept with deep roots in
common law, and their enforceability does not rely on the existence of a particular “trademarks office” or
statute establishing the same. If the plaintiff can establish a violation of their trademark, a cause of action may
exist. Our courts are empowered to enforce trademark rights, and a source from which we can perform an
analysis on common law trademark rights is the Restatement of Unfair Competition. It is in there, however,
where we see that the plaintiff’s case must fail.
In my view, Mr. Samianz12’s Bank has never used the name “Bank of Ridgeway” as a trademark. “A
trademark is a word, name, symbol, device, or other designation, or a combination of such designations, that is
distinctive of a person’s goods or services and that is used in a manner that identifies those goods or services
and distinguishes them from the goods or services of others.” Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 9, at
76 (Am. L. Inst. 1995). The plaintiff admits that Mr. Samianz12’s Bank has not begun actually operating yet,
and merely allows initial investment via a parent company, Ridgeway Financial Banking Holdings Corporation.
In my view, although Mr. Samianz12’s Bank used the name “Bank of Ridgeway” in earnings reports and in the
“Shareholder Register” of the Ridgeway Financial Banking Holdings Corporation, there is no indication that the
name was used in “a manner that identifies [Mr. Samianz12’s Bank’s] goods or services”. According to the
plaintiff, the use of “Bank of Ridgeway” in the “Shareholder Register” is limited to listing “Bank of Ridgeway”
as a subsidiary entity. And because Mr. Samianz12’s Bank has not yet begun operation, I cannot see how
earnings reports might grant us insight into the goods or services that Mr. Samianz12’s Bank offers.
Consequently, the plaintiff has not shown that a trademark exists, and accordingly, that Mr. xNickGamerYTx’s
Bank has not infringed upon the competitive rights of Mr. Samianz12’s Bank as far as trademarks are
concerned.
Having established that Mr. Samianz12’s Bank is not entitled to trademark rights over the name “Bank
of Ridgeway”, the case against Mr. ibm03 must be dismissed in turn because the relevant agency action
(Department of State) was not infringing on the legal rights of the plaintiff. I must admit that the registration of
two businesses with the same name was perhaps an unwise decision on the part of the Secretary of State, but I
would not go so far as to describe it as an “abuse of discretion”. Of course, my role is not to rule on the wisdom
of agency decisions which have been delegated to cabinet officers by statute, and so I decline to overturn the
decision to register Mr. xNickGamerYTx’s Bank. Because I have decided to dismiss this case in its entirety
based on a failure to establish that a trademark exists, I choose to exercise restraint in reserving my opinion on
the other specific issues surrounding the case against Mr. ibm03.
CONCLUSION
The case is dismissed with prejudice.
I thank the counsellors of both sides for their excellent submissions.
SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
At Palmer, Ridgeway, this 24th day of May, 2022.
/s/ frostbleed
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
