Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

D . Case 3:03-cv-00993-SEIU Document 23 Filed 10/20/2003 Page 1 of 4
t C C.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT I I
nun uri 20 A °l= 3L*
CONAIR CORPORATION ) W; A n. q -
Plaintiff; g CIVIL ACTION NOT, LW A at I I
v. ) 303 CV993 (SRU) g
L&N SALES AND MARKETING, g
Defendant. g October 17, 2003
CONAIR CORPRS REPLY TO
DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIMS
Conair Corporation ("Conair") replies to the ("L&N") allegations of Defendant L&N
Sales and Marketing’s Counterclaims as follows:
1. Conair admits that L&N has asserted claims pursuant to the Federal Declaratory
Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. l
2. Conair admits that the counterclaims asserted by L&N arise under the Lanham Act, 15 i
U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. and the patent law ofthe United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq.
3. The allegations of Paragraph 3 are admitted.
4. Conair is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the
allegations of Paragraph 4 ofthe Counterclaim and accordingly denies the same and leaves L&N l
to its proof
5. Conair is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity ofthe
allegations of Paragraph 5 ofthe Counterclaim and accordingly denies the same and leaves L&N
to its proof I





. ` Case 3:03-cv-OO993€1$U Document 23 Filed 10/20/6wS Page 2 of 4
6. Conair admits that L&N sells a hair brush having a Mendel No. 18722-A. As for the
remaining allegations of Paragraph 6, Conair is without sufficient information to form a belief as
to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations, and accordingly denies the same and leaves L&N to its !
proof
7. Conair admits that photographs of several L&N hair brushes were attached to Conair’s
Complaint as Exhibit B. As for the remaining allegations of Paragraph 7, Conair is without
sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations, and accordingly
denies the same and leaves L&N to its proof l
8. Conair admits that it has alleged that L&N’s sale of certain hair brushes infringes p
Conair’s trade dress rights.
COUNT I
9. The reply to Paragraphs 1-8 set forth above are hereby incorporated by reference as
though fully set forth herein.
10. Paragraph 10 is denied.
11. Paragraph 11 is denied.
12. Paragraph 12 states a legal conclusion to which Conair is not required to respond. !
1
13. Paragraph 13 is denied. I
14. Paragraph 14 is denied. I
15. Paragraph 15 is denied.
16. Paragraph 16 is denied. I
2 1
i

. — Case 3:03-cv-00993-GHU Document 23 Filed 10/20/6wS Page 3 of 4
COUNT II
17. The reply to Paragraphs 1-16 set forth above are hereby incorporated by reference as
though fully set forth herein.
18. Paragraph 18 is admitted.
19. Paragraph 19 is denied. _
20. Paragraph 20 is denied. .
21. Paragraph 21 is denied. ’
22. Paragraph 22 is denied. I
23. Paragraph 23 is denied. _
THE PLAINTIFF
CONAIR CORPORATION,
BY MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
ITS ATTORNEYS
i
2 - l
I BY
Eric E. Grondahl (CT08988) 1
William H. Narwold (CTOOI33)
CityPlace I E
185 Asylum Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06103
(S60) 275-6700
(860) 724-3397 (Facsimile)
i
3 i


. - Case 3:03-cv-OO993—i?tU Document 23 Filed 10/20/?003 Page 4 of 4
’ 2 K-)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a copy ofthe foregoing Reply to Defenda11t’s Counterclaims
has been sent via first class mail, this [ 2 day of October, 2003 to:
Arthur H. Seidel, Esq.
Michael F. Snyder, Esq.
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
OHS LOgZ·1Il SQURYB
18th and Cherry Street I
Philadelphia, PA 19103-6996
William J. Cass, Esq.
Andrew C. Ryan, Esq.
Cantor Colburn LLP
55 Griffin Road South
Bloomfield, CT 06002
2.; zg@ g l
Eric E. Grondahl 4
HARTFORD: 600794.01 I