No one. I supply evidence and logic to prove my point. I don't see any evidence that contradicts it only repetition of the same old charges ad nauseum.
1.) Al doesn't own any trademark, his US application is pending.
2.) Consequently, he has no claim against mCig or overseas partners
3.) He's never collected anything from the overseas partners
4.) All overseas partners own their own rights to the trademark in their own countries.
5.) Even if he eventually received a US trademark, he'd still have no claim against mCig because mCig has prior rights to its use and US judges have no jurisdiction on trademarks outside the US.
6.)Al doesn't have any significant market share, he doesn't even seem to be in business.
7.) The VitaStik trademark has not had and will never have any impact shareholders or mCig/VitaCig revenue.
Therefore, there is no "vitaStik trademark debacle" and never was. The issue is irrelevant to shareholders so Paul's actions with regard to it are irrelevant.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
