Whether the Eleventh Circuit properly reviewed de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Jysk, ignoring issues of fraud, identity, retroactive application of the ACPA, and failure to address fiduciary duty and equitable accounting in a joint-venture

Questions Presented he issues, in this sum of matters, between pro se Monosij Dutta-Roy (Petitioner or DuttaIRoy) and Jysk Bed ‘N Linen, formerly Quick Ship Holding, DBA By Design (Respondent or lysk or By Design or then Quick Ship) arose out of a profit-sharing joint-venture (J/V) partnership agreement to develop an eCommerce furniture site on the domain signed on or about July 2000 (P/A or 2000 P/A) (Apdx-E4) between Quick Ship and Bazaar Works.' Quick Ship’s by sole-owner Mr. Kjell Bratengen (Bratengen), canceled the eCommerce go-live, soon after Quick Ship manager Mr. Scott Bell (Bell)’s? purchase of deployment servers in 2003, in eCommerce development finalized by Dutta-Roy. This denied junior partner Dutta-Roy, any income from the J/V profit-sharing earnings arrangement of 12% >11%—10% from the estimated furniture sales of $1M—$2M—>$3M+ on the site’ — a significant loss just by DuttaIRoy’s 4000+ development time. Quick Ship was then sold to Jysk in 2006. Set of questions presented are on whether The Eleventh Circuit (11th Cir.) has reviewed de novo, US District Court, Northern Dist. Of Georgia’s (NDGA) grant of Sum. Jud. (Apdx-B3 . (DN-69)), endorsing Jysk’s claims for 1) Can the 11th Cir. ignore the fraudulent nature of the affidavits used by the NDGA to grant summary judgment, ignoring the critical issue of Jysk’s identity claimed and granted as BYDESIGNFURNITURE? Should NDGA and the 11th Cir. (the Courts) have allowed Jysk to proceed filing as DBA By Design Furniture, only based on a USPTO filing for BYDESIGNFURNITURE, yet to be granted by Dutta-Roy’s opposition? 2) Can the NDGA apply the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1125 retroactively, arguing Jysk’s right to by common-law, 1 The 2000 P/A was between Jysk, then Quick Ship, and Dutta-Roy, then BazaarWorks. The BazaarWorks partnership was between Dutta-Roy, Ashish Negandhi (Negandhi), Shashi Sonnad (Sonnad) and Devashish Worah (Worah), formalized September 12, 1999, to take on the eCommerce development. Dutta-Roy took over BazaarWorks since about 2002. 2 Bell and others at By Design had validated, in 2002/ 03, functionality of the secure eCommerce, on servers running on Dutta-Roy's home-office. [3 Dutta-Roy has shown an unsigned copy of the J/V, 2000 P/A, corroborating emails between Bratengen and himself, confirming eCommerce development. He has also submitted affidavits from former BazaarWorks partner Negandhi, noting the eCommerce | development started about July 2000, in express understanding with Bratengen. _ i | Petition: Writ of Certiorari | 11% Cir. Civil/ Appeal: 18-14410-HH ignoring Dutta-Roy’s continuous ownership and licensing of his mark to Jysk? Can the . Courts, flip-flopping on renew v. register arguments, retroactively apply the ACPA? 3) Have the Courts also failed to address the basis for any of Jysk’s ACPA claims against DuttaRoy, granted also by contract/ property rights, ignoring Dutta-Roy’s prima facie pre-ACPA ownership and his J/V rights to Thus did the Courts fail to address fraud and just by that when after five years of litigation Jysk dropped Lanham Act claims against Dutta-Roy? Ye 4) Have the 11th Cir. failed to address how NDGA could allow Jysk to amend its pleading so as to conform to the original sum. jud., while not allowing Dutta-Roy to amend his pleading? How can this be allowed on plausibility issues cited? 5) Ona broader note, have the ACPA and the Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et. seq, been applied the right contexts in the profit-sharing, joint-venture, fiduciary duty thereof, beyond just the historical contexts of property and contract? Here the prima facie profit-sharing fiduciary arguments in joint-venture on the domain has been completely ignored. 6) In market structure arguments showing prima facie that the joint-venture mark is significantly overvalued to the primary partner’s mark (By Design stores) it is dependent on —can the 11th Cir. also ignore Dutta-Roy’s arguments for an equitabl