Theses are other legal reasons beyond and with regards the "fraudulently obtained" Firehouse Subs Trademark Portfolio;


CITING: Parklane Hosiery and Montana. The key language here is "full and fair opportunity to litigate." Under Parklane Hosiery and Montana, it is the opportunity to litigate an issue, and not its actual litigation, that is important.

Over the years, Firehouse Subs has been provided the "full and fair opportunity to litigate" many times over concerning their entire Trademark Portfolio that uses the common word “FIREHOUSE”. In Federal Court and in before TTAB Firehouse Subs did in fact present pictures of all their Trademarks “collectively, the marks” from 1999 to 2016. In every litigation alongside EVERY Firehouse Subs Trademark “the marks” in their Trademark Portfolio using the word “FIREHOUSE” were detailed in the Claims brought to the US Federal District Court, Florence SC. _Co-Founder, Robin Sorensen in concert with Attorney, Richard Vermut since 1999 to present EVERYTIME implemented a "sue-to-settlement" legal posture.

This unethical "sue-to-settlement" posture by Co-Founder, Robin Sorensen in concert with Attorney, Richard Vermut was very easy to employ since many if not all small business owners did not have the money (Hundreds of Thousands) require to legally fight the lawsuit brought by Firehouse Subs to a conclusion. _Remembering, it cost Cali Bakers / Capt Heath Scurfeild Hundreds of Thousands in Federal Court to legally fight until 2011 and then Firehouse Subs, Co-Founder, Robin Sorensen in concert with Attorney, Richard Vermut went on and tried to knock Cali Bakers / Capt Heath Scurfeild to the financial canvas by filing an expensive Appeals Court action regarding the lower court unanimous Jury Verdict.


The rule of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1738-1739 pertains not merely to recognition by state courts of the records and judicial proceedings of courts of sister States but to recognition by “every court within the United States,” including recognition of the records and proceedings of the courts of any territory or any country subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The federal courts are bound to give to the judgments of the state courts the same faith and credit that the courts of one State are bound to give to the judgments of the courts of her sister States.

In 1813, the Supreme Court interpreted this federal statute, in the leading case of Mills v. Duryee. - See Mills v. Duryee, 11 U.S. 481 (1813)

Justice Joseph Story wrote for the Court that it was the federal statute (rather than the constitutional provision) that made records from one state effective in another state:

"It is argued, that this act provides only for the admission of such records as evidence, but does not declare the effect of such evidence, when admitted. This argument cannot be supported. The act declares, that the record, duly authenticated, shall have such faith and credit as it has in the state court from whence it is taken. If in such court it has the faith and credit of evidence of the highest nature, viz., record evidence, it must have the same faith and credit in every other court."


Stare decisis is the doctrine of precedent. It is the abbreviation of the full Latin phrase stare decisis et non quieta mvere”, of which the literal translation is “to stand by decided matters and not to disturb settled matters”. This means that a court will rule according to a previously established decision or finding.


The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel often come into play when a subsequent case, similar to a case already adjudicated, is filed. The rationale behind the doctrines is that an issue or cause of action fully litigated should not be litigated again. Res judicata is often referred to as "claim preclusion". Collateral estoppel is often referred to as "issue preclusion".