Talk:FCSB/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Court Decisions

The history of the club has already been stated in the court decisions in 2021. 1947-1998 the football section of the Army Sports Club Steaua Bucharest was active, 1998-2003 AFC Steaua was active and in 2003 SC FC FCSB SA has illegally registered in the first league and has illegally registered the logos at OSIM. This has already been proven in court. UEFA and FIFA has no say in this, exactly the same way they have no saying in any other case judged by any court in the world. 82.174.69.36 (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Hold your breath about what has already been proven in court since retrials have been ordered in both trials concerning FCSB. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

One process, regarding some logos, not the history, name or trademark. The name is final, Trademark final, History at the supreme court. You are in denial? 193.231.104.153 (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

https://www.scj.ro/1094/Detalii-dosar?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=300000000753242

https://www.scj.ro/1094/Detalii-dosar?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=300000000798700

From a Romanian newspaper: https://www.digisport.ro/fotbal/verdict-in-procesul-pentru-marca-steaua-intre-fcsb-si-csa-decizia-inaltei-curti-de-casatie-si-justitie-1574745

I have no dog in this fight, I simply follow what the courts have decided till now.

I don't care if FCSB wins or loses those cases, I simply care that the verdicts are accurately rendered.

According to https://api.osim.ro:8443/tm-registry/results.htm , the trademark "STEAUA BUCURESTI" is pending litigation (storage no. 040052).

You conflate between being temporarily enforced and final verdict. There is no final verdict about those.

AFAIK this is like asking the International Court of Justice to decide whether Stephen the Great is a hero of Romania or a hero of the Republic of Moldova. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

And https://www.digisport.ro/fotbal/liga-1/palmaresul-echipei-steaua-se-rejudeca-inalta-curte-de-casatie-si-justitie-a-admis-recursul-fcsb-ului-1691204

Official view of UEFA: https://ziare.com/fcsb/fcsb-steaua-uefa-1745505 tgeorgescu (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

And yet, until a retrail shows and pr proves otherwise, this entire pages information is incorrect. FCSB only came into existance in 2017. That is fact and law as of the time of me writing this. All information on this parge needs removing and transferring to the CSA STEAUA BUCURESTI page instead, UNTIL otherwise changed in court. As it stands now, CSA hold all the records and information on this page, likewise the list of records page also. It is very obvious that the editors of FCSb are extremely biased and have no interest in portraying accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:C054:DA00:24E3:51F7:20C2:6622 (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Evidence? tgeorgescu (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Update: https://www.digisport.ro/fotbal/palmaresul-stelei-judecat-azi-la-inalta-curte-de-casatie-si-justitie-cand-se-va-lua-decizia-2251379 , which means business as usual (nothing newsworthy).

Another source (says the same): https://www.prosport.ro/fotbal-intern/azi-se-judeca-palmaresul-stelei-toate-detaliile-celui-de-al-doilea-termen-dintre-csa-si-fcsb-19604732 tgeorgescu (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Verdict postponed to 28 March 2023. Lawyer Virgil Boglea says that "action of noticing" does not amount to much, juridically speaking, and that it isn't executory. So, yeah, it seems likely that CSA will win such dispute, but the victory will be tainted by general irrelevance. https://www.digisport.ro/fotbal/liga-1/o-noua-amanare-in-procesul-pentru-palmaresul-stelei-hotararea-inaltei-curti-de-casatie-si-justitie-2279689 tgeorgescu (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

So, yeah, Mr. Talpan lost many years with a futile litigation. Meanwhile his main claim might be struck with the statute of limitations. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Nobody won the case, a retrial has been ordered: https://www.digisport.ro/fotbal/liga-1/cazul-palmaresului-celor-de-la-csa-steaua-si-fcsb-se-rejudeca-2304299

Mr. Talpan decidedly not happy: https://www.sport.ro/fotbal-intern/zdecizie-absolut-halucinanta-florin-talpan-a-iesit-la-atac-dupa-decizia-iccj-de-rejudecare-a-procesului.html tgeorgescu (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

STOP SHOWING PRESS ARTICLES WRITTEN BY "journalists" that get money from the owner of football club fcsb. Judges don't care about some fool's articles. They only take in consideration contracts and signed paperwork! 92.40.219.204 (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Even assuming that those journalists do take money from him, they didn't invent the verdicts. The verdicts are available on https://portal.just.ro and https://www.scj.ro/ , thus very easy to be checked by anyone who understands Romanian. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Wrong! The “Fotbal Club Steaua București” association (@owns the historic club according to the 1st article in its statute , which hasn’t been nullified)now called “SC FC FCSB SA” was founded in 2003 (note association , not team). That’s also why the entire trial is wrong from a sporting perspective. The honors are tied to the historic team , not the company/association who manages it (note the Rangers case). Also , the trial isnt executory. It is literally useless. In conclusion , the info on this page is correct 2A02:2F05:D108:700:9426:987F:58F5:2886 (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Today, some trademarks of CSA Steaua are still listed as "pending litigation", see https://api.osim.ro:8443/tm-registry/results.htm

Give me one good reason why this would be "simply my own opinion", rather than official data from the Romanian Trademarks Registry. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)