Document 13
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 1 of 20
1
2 3
RONALD MARTINETTI, ESQ. State Bar No.106 898 KAZANJIAN & MARTINETTI 520 East Wilson Avenue Glendale, California 91206 TeI~ 818-24I~loIr FAX 818-241-2193
4
5 6 7
Attorneys for Lee's General John Lee
Defendants Toys, Inc.,
and
UNITED STATES DISTRICT SOUTHERN DISTRICT
COURT
8
9
OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
~ III Z -.. U).-~ ililk: U
CASE. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CONSUMER PRODUCTS LP, a Delaware limited partnership,
Plaintif'f' ,
NO.07 CV 2391 (JAR POR)
ANSWER AND JURY
DEFENDANTS' TO TRIAL COMPLAINT FOR
ID O N 01 ~ Z OIl InO NLio "' J ..< 3u (/) . III .J < C Z III .J ~
12
13
DEMAND
14
15 16 17
.J
V5.
LEE'S GENERAL TOYS, INC., corporation, JOHN LEE, an DOES 1-10, a California individual; ) and) )
18 19
Defendants.
(Assigned to J. Houston)
Hon.
20
21
DEFENDANTS and LEE'S GENERAL TOYS, INC. a California
Corporation, the Plaintiff's
22 23 24
25
JOHN
LEE hereby
and both
respectfully
a jury
each
trial:
answer
Complaint
request
DEFENDANTS'
ANSWERS
",,--,~"'",~ complafnt,
so these
1.
prepared
with
thelr
regard
... case
to
for
the
trlal
~~~+c entire
~nd
e" Defendants
answers are
have
subJect
not
to
26 27 28
information
pr=sently
available.
1
Case 3:07-cv-02391-JAH-POR
Document 13
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 2 of 20
1
JURISDICTION 2. any with regard under that and that
a lawsuit; -~-
AND VENUE 1, Defendants listed which or has deny under created have
that
2 3
to
paragraph the is statutes Plaintiff
that the
they common
have law,
liability
4
5 6 7
and believe standing,
without
it
any been
misunderresolved
~~--has --
any misunderstanding
however, -'C Defendants =-'"'
should
believe ~.=7c-=,~,"
Plaintiff
set
forth
the
various
statutes
and
common
law
which
relates
to
8 9 10
11
~ 1III Z -"' (J)1-> 111~< \0 o N 0) ~ Z
the
issues 3. with subject
of
trademark to
and unfair paragraph jurisdiction; they they are 2,
competition Defendants with regard to the
law. admit to that the court
regard
has
matter admit deny that that since
paragraph of any
3,
the
Defendants court thorized (Angelite) that honest
4. nia
subject
jurisdiction or their sold tissue
12 13
but
promoted,
advertised that
unau-
"' :) Z
goods has
Defendants to
believe Plaintiff's filed this toilet
product
and
U
14 15
16 17
no similarity has apparently
package lawsuit paper
wrapping to
Plaintiff and fair
discourage
competition
are that located venue
in
in
the
the
market.
of
Defendants believe
Central/,District in that District;
Califor-
18 19
and
~_.~=-~..~-~is proper
moreover, trademark that they
Defendants since differ
deny
that
they of
have\ infringed the two tissue
on Plaintiff's wrappings differences. shows
20
21
an examination in type, color,
name,
among other
22 23 24 25 26
27 to 5. Defendants 8)
THE PARTIES have no knowledge Plaintiff's the of what Does Plaintiff status paragraph 7) but by is
6,
refers
(paraand
(paragraph
I)
and what
corporate allegation in
graph
admit
Defendants John he has Lee is
admit
that that
an individual
(paragraph
strongly
Plaintiff
deny
infringed
on any trademark
owned
28
--2
(since
in 1
the
apaware, Anqelite among has held this trademark sinc~ ?001a valid California trademark in the name other details) .Moreover, as Plaintiff is
two
competing
products
are
vastly
difference
pearance, 2
J)p.'fp.nn~nt-~
and
h~~
4 filing
R
Plaintiff's delay
in
this acted
t-_h~ir
wn~ v~lirl-
lawsuit at all times in good faith believinq that
has
seriously
prejudiced
Defendants.
Further,
Defendants
Page 3 of 20
R
trnd~mnrk
N
GENERAL
AT,T,F:(;ArrT()NS
knowledqe at
8
nno
nprpnn~nt-~
have
rn those alleqations which
~rA Fnr which
~nn
~
Filed 01/11/2008
10
dealinq
with
forth
inclu~ivp--
the
length in paragraphs
not , know
background
9 through whpn 19,
and history
of'Angel
Soft
s~t
11
10 o N
m
at
i= 1\II "'
:J Z
12
example,
Defendants Georqia-Pacific, ny, have any no began marketinq
was a defunct railronn ("!,
do
Z
apparently
l~
-"' (/)1-> < Z
11l1t< U~ZO~
Document 13
ii:~~~~ iJ. .J ~!:< (/) . I1l .J < O Z -
'4
of
lR
distributing Georgia-Pacific's
~~nnn...
bathroom registered admit in
havp-
tissue. trademarks deny paragraphs. of the alleqed product many other
are factual (or
Also, or
Defendants
know.ledqe
O~-",.J
assiqnments or
thp.
and
nrh~r
~Z~:JU It! < ~ .J-< .'11l Zo ~N N(/)
th~rp.r(')rp
or above no knowledge share bathroom and the
49
these
alleqations
If\
~
~ (3
17 7lB
lA
allegations Defendants
and
listed
the
Case 3:07-cv-02391-JAH-POR
supposed
hillinn~
fame it
and
advertisinq spent
paragraphs 20-31.
market its These
and the tissue
has
20
21
to promote
(as alleqations
apoc
set
forth set
hal) and forth
in
22 2~ 24
2R 2R nr tissues (paraqraph
admit
in
paragraphs
9 through
~11h-
ject
nT
to knowinq in at advertising
(paragraph
proof present
in
discovery.
Por whether (paragraph
27) or the
example, Plaintiff 21)
m
!Defendants has or
,er
have in sold
of
no fact billions
visitors to
way spent of
it~
?:?:
million
dollars
w~h. 24) . Therefore,
?7
2R
t-n
site
at or deny the alleqations
present set
Defendants forth
in
are paraqraphs
1
unablp-
20
1
throuqh
8.
31,
inclusive.
2 3
listed in paragraph 32.
4 9. as
that
Defendants claim respective "confusingly products
hold Calia valid similar"--as
deny Defendants bathroom products shows, the
Defendants
the have are use totally differinfringed any trademark or
allegations
in
paragraph
33 insofar
5
they the Plaintiff's
p.nt--
that
Page 4 of 20
R
1')1
own complaint
and packaging. Moreover,
p,
type
Q
fornia 10. lite 11. Defendants to
('!nmn
\ in type and colorinq\
trademark Paragraph 500. deny.that their product is "confusinqly
simi-
and have 34 appears to be an accurate depiction of
Anqe-
since
2001.
Filed 01/11/2008
10 11
525 and Anqelite
~ 1IU "'
:J Z 01 -
12
Z
~ InN~ i1J..."' U
"'
< Z
13 lar"
vi ~11~ 1
different
35.
A
Document 13
..II.
14 arison of the packaqinq shows that the
. i1J .J < C Z
products
are
~Z,":JU «",In .J-< .'i1J Zo «\I NIn
15
l.A
12. deny
37,
Defendants those and ~9 on the to
had
specious
allegations followinq itself
listed grounds, with
in
~
~ G
17
paragraphs
36,
38,
amonq
Plain-
Case 3:07-cv-02391-JAH-POR
lP'
others:
tiff--in fact, Defendants have
Defendants
had no intent
associate
a valid
lA
California
trad~m~rk
20
since confusion mistake Defendants' have
with regard -~. -c to
2003. or tissue are deceptive--and for
Moreover,
Defendants
deny that
that
its
products no reasonable Plaintiff's. In
cause consumer fact,
any would
COn~l]mpr~
21
22 2~
n~'f~nd~nt~ l~w~l];r13.
recently
surveyed
paragraphs ~ 40
are
shocked
and ~=,..? 41, "o
at
Defendants
t-_hi ~
baseless
deny
24
2R 2R
that their confus2d--th~ Angelite products
t-wn
would\~ause products have
the totally
reasonable different
consumer
to packaging.
be
27
2R
A.
Case 3:07-cv-02391-JAH-POR
Document 13
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 5 of 20
Moreover,
1
Plaintiff that claim
request
has the
admitted Trade
that Mark
the Office
word has intend
"soft"
cannot
be
trademarked--and
2
admonished to
Plain-
tiff
3 file
not
a FOI
to
act
otherwise.
to obtain
Defendants
all files
immediately Plaintiff's
reflecting
4 unsuccessful
5 6
~
battle Defendants
with
the
United
deny ,"--'C
States
that
Trademark their
Office.
was
Further, willful 14. their
to an
specifically ,,--~
conduct
and deliberate. with actions
injunction
8 9 10
11
regard were
to
paragraphs
42 and 43, that
Defendants Plaintiff
California
deny is
their
wrongful
and deny
have
entitled trade-
since
Defendants
a valid
mark. 15.
i= 1w"'
Z :J Z
with
regard
for an
to
paragraphs
44 and 45 Defendants
trademark
admit
and that
that
they
"' o N
0\
12 they 13 applied received a California
-"' IJ)1-> UJIk:< U
< Z \10
14
15 16 17
have
nia.
sold
their
product
in
various
locations
in
Southern
Califor-
. UJ
.'UJ Z o
.J < C Z ~
16. Plaintiff's
with
regard
to
paragraphs
46 and 47,
Defendants
deny of
that the
18 19 trademark. 17. undertake trademarks time, not ferent into except confusing from
all
20
21
with
regard discovery
to
paragraphs as to
48 and 49,
Defendants rnQy have
intend
filed
to their
wh~n Defendants admit or deny the
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
and so cannot to state its that
allegations
at trademark are
this is
dif-
Defendants' and design
California and lettering denial be can is
since Defendants.
color Moreover, the word
and this Soft cannot
incorporated
paragraphs, fail to
trademarked--and claim that the
Defendants world Angel
understand to them.
how Plaintiff
belongs
5
Case 3:07-cv-02391-JAH-POR
Document 13
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 6 of 20
1
ANSWER TO FIRST (Trademark 18. paragraph facts 19. accurately 20. have At no pled Defendants 50 in Infringement (and each of
CLAIM FOR RELIEF Under them) 15 use answer 1114) the by this allegations reference answer. 51, insofar as it
in
2
3
4
5 6 7 8 9
by realleging paragraphs admit the 1-17, the law. Defendants
and incorporating inclusive in of
the
Defendants states this basis 52.
Plaintiff's
claims
paragraph
time, upon ~
have
not
undertaken deny c the
discovery, allegation
so
in
which ""~=-~.=.~-~'= or to admit
, are
10
11
i= 1l1I "'
z :J z
paragraph
21.
allegations\
vague
in
that
they
do
not
have
(I) o N
0)
12
13
any
admit
factual or
statements,. deny those
so at allegations
this
time set of
Defendants in
are
unable
53--for
to
-"' 1/11-> LIJ~< u
Defendants referring
a secondary
have to--that
no idea
secondary has
to
Plainword
~z~3~ :;; 1/1 . « .J-o( LIJ .'LIJ .J :Zo < N C 1/1 Z LIJ .J 19
is
Georgia-Pacific
that only belongs
the
meaning
22. at this
Defendants time and since
deny they
the
allegations not
set
forth
in
paragraph to undertake
54
18 19
have deny
wi th
had an opportunity the general
tissue
I "".,
discovery
old railroad
further
company
"a high
that
public
/\:Or
t-hat ~~~, and
associates Plaintiff's are
famous,"
an
20
21
..-c",~~-~=_.~~~.~~==C" degree of
bathroom
product etc.
23.
has
distinctiveness
22 23 24
25
Defendants 55--and
strongly this
deny
each
and also
every be is
allegation read
into
in
paragraph other ing to
denial Defendants'
should
every confus-
paragraph--since the public, in in
Angelite
in
no way
26 27 28
no way unfairly "mistakes
completes
with
Plaintiff's and in
no
products,
no way causes
among customers,"
6
way infringes are
1
upon
J,n appeargn..~~~.,"g!!g,,_tQn~9"tyle) .
Plaintiff's
trademark
(since
the
packages
totally
.. dlfferent
2 24.
~
Defendants conduct was willful or that they infrinqed upon Plaintiff's
strongly
deny
(as
claimed
in
paragraph
56)
that
their
4
trademarks. 25.
with
5
regard
that
to they
since
valid
paragraph
Defendants have a
57, trademark alike as (so
Defendants
deny
Page 7 of 20
B
have
iniured Plaintiff 7
and moreover
B
the
the ordinary consumer) .
two
products
are
not
even
remotely
to 9 26.
confuse
Defendants 58--for from
con-
deny has they
FOR RELIEF
all not confused. submitted any declarations
the
allegations
in
paragraph
Filed 01/11/2008
10
example,
11
Plaintiff alleging
ANSWER-."-~=---"-,_.. TO SECOND CLAIM --"
surners
ID o (\I ~
l~
were
i= 1IIJ "'
12
"Z~
Document 13
-"' Inl-> < W~< Z Uc(ZO~(\1 ano \10 ii:~0 "' .M .J -
(Common Law Trademark 14 27.
Defendants (and each them) the '.\ of i\ answer
Infringement) allegations by
this in
\10 ",.J
O
~z~3~ 1-1n < "' .J-o( .,w Zo c((\1 Nan . w .J < c z
15
paraqraph
16
59 by realleging paragraphs
inclusive
and incorporatinq 1-17,
of
reference
nn~wpr-
the
~
~ ~
facts
17
pled Defendants
.
in admit the allegations in
28.
paragraph
60 (but
deny
Case 3:07-cv-02391-JAH-POR
18
any
lQ
liability)
,qDefendants deny grounds,
the
20
61--on
21
lar.
each
and every
two
allegation
products are
in
totally
paragraph
dissimi-
among other
22
30. Defendants other
trademark
deny
each
and every they
in 2003.
allegation applied for/and
in
wprp
paragraph granted
23 24
California on, amonq
62
qrounds,
a
25
31.
2R
Defendants
other
deny
groi
each
and every they trademark in 2003. applied
allegation for and
in
paragraph were qranted
63
27
2R California
on,
among
a
7
1
ANSWER
TO
THIRD
CT-,ATM FOR
RET-,IEF
2
(False 32-
Desiqnation
of
Oriqin
Under
15 USC 1125
(a))
in
3 alleqations
rprprpn("!p
t-hp
Defendants
h4
(and
realleqinq ,ratinq by and inc,
each
of
them)
answer
the
4 paraqraph
by
f)
Page 8 of 20
R
33. any liability) .
Defendants
admit
the
alleqations
in
paraqraph
65
(but
deny
7
P.
.Q
34. are
35.
Defendants to deny paraqraph meaninq that
h7
have or those particular secondary alleqations in
~nn
not deny those alleqations in paraqraph 66.
undertaken
discovery
and so at
present
unable Defendants do not
claims.
admit
Filed 01/11/2008
In
11
further
tiff
know what
Plain-
~ f111"' 0; < Z
10 o N
12
Z ~ ~ "' tnN~ LIJ...
13
36.
Defendants deny was not the in wrapping products are totally different confused, all the alleqations in paraqr. public are
hR
in
Document 13
U
14
that and only
~r~ r_h~ ~nl nr wh; rp deny all the alleqations / in
the in fact
not
confusinq,
'T'h~
O~~",J ~ !: < . LIJ .J < C Z
~Zl-jU «"'tn .J-< .'LIJ Zo
lR
and packaging. paper
lR
and
~
~ ~
'7
lP.
Case 3:07-cv-02391-JAH-POR
17.
Defendants
paraqraph
69 applied for
nnci
lQ
deny
received a California trademark
that
their
behavior
was willful--Defendants
in 2003--and since
and
2()
then
Pl~intiTT
2'
has
~P.-
sat
f)pTpnr1~nt-~
on its deny
is
riqhts,
if
any. that they have damaqed
Pl n i nt-_i f'f'
~in~p
22 2~
their own trademark
valid.
24
39. on. among
r~l;Tnrn;~
Defendants other
t-r~r'l1
deny
each qrounds,
rk in
and every they
~OO1-
alleqation applied for and
in
wprp
paraqraph qranted
7' "
2R 2R
27
2P.
.I:).
1
ANSWER TO FOURTH CLAIM
FOR RELIEF
2
(False 40. Defendants allegations reference
the. in
Advertising (and and incorporating 1-17. inclusive in paragraph 73 (but deny of this answer. the allegations by each of them) answer the
Under
15 USC 1125
(a)
~
4
paragraph facts 41.
any 42. liability) .
72
by realleging paraqraphs admit
R
pled Defendants
in
Page 9 of 20
6
~
B
Defendants deny
74
in
all
the
allegations
in
paragraph
9
Filed 01/11/2008
10 and in only paper are ANSWER TO FIFTH (Trademark 41Defendants 75 by realleging paraqraphs admit paragraph the allegations 1-17, inclusive of in and incorporating this in (and each of them) answer paragraph facts 44. any taken 45. are unable (as alleged to admit or in "famous" pIe, marked 46. 82, by the Defendants for as Defendants Defendants have not yet discovery liability) ; as to Defendants pled the by Dilution Under 15 U8C 1125 CLAIM FOR RELIEF (c» allegations reference answer. paragraph have 76 not venue . undertaken whether paragraph understand it, Office. deny each example, and every Plaintiff's allegation alleged in paragraphs trademark is discovery Plaintiff's 78) The word was not and therefore
tradp.m~rk~
fact similarity is white. that both tissues are made out of
are
totally
differen,t
in
wrapping
and packaging.
The
and
11
~ 1~
Z
"'
:J Z < Z 0)
ID o N
12
the
color
-"' Inl->
1.~
!JJ(r< U
Document 13
ii:~~~~ \I. -' ~!:<
14
lR
!JJ .J < C Z
O~-",J
~Zf-:JU
«lnln.J-o( .'!JJ Zo
in
16
thp.
~
d
17 18
19
Case 3:07-cv-02391-JAH-POR
(but yet
deny under-
77 Defendants
20
21
aha reserve~"th-e"".'.f'iqh"tC7~~e!bhtest
22 2~ 24
?-R
deny
are "soft," allowed to for
hp-
exarntrade-
us Trademark
2R
79not
27
2P.
inclu~;vp~
q
public's
1
mind, 2
this
lawsuit
has
no
reasonable
word
~
basis and so Plaintiff's Moreover,
in
in reputation conduct fact,
in
fact, has was not
a California
Plaintiff not willful: trademark riqhts for four been tarnished or
has
no trademark
in
the
"soft," 4 injured.
5
Defendants'
Tor and obtained
Page 10 of 20
J)p-Tp-nn~nts
applied
Plaintiff
6
?:003
(and .
has alleqed
sat
on its
ry
years) 8
47. Defendants
and
deny public products
in
all was not are
wrappinq
the confused, different that
.. wh1te and therefore Pla1nt1ff
alleqations the are not
and
in
paragraphs
83
9
Filed 01/11/2008
84
in
that
~nd
the in sim.ilarity
-"--~."~~---".. the color
10 confusing,
11
fact is both ~issues are made
totally
packaging.
ID o N
The only
and are
out
cannot
~ ~ \1J "'
12
n-F
paper l~
Z ~ (/)"'~ LIJ...
~ "'
0; < Z
Document 13
U
'4
AN~WER TO SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
15 (Dilution
lB
be damaqed
or
iniured
under
the
law.
O",-",.J ~~< . LIJ .J < C Z
~Z..:JU"' (/) < < .J-o( .'LIJ Zo
Under Common Law)
California
Business
& Professions
Code
14330
~
~ ~
and 17 4R.
18
California
Case 3:07-cv-02391-JAH-POR
Defendants 85 by realleging paraqraphs admit the 1-17, in and inc
(and
each
of
them)
answer rating of in
the by this
alleqations
rp-'fp-rp-nC'!p-
in
paragraph
1A
the answer. paragraph 86 (but deny
20
49.
21
facts Defendants
.
pled
inclusive
allegations
22 23
50. Defendants
any
liability)
have
not
undertaken
discovery
'in
and so
paraqraph 87.
at
this
24
25
2R
51. qrounds mark
that
Defendants that
deny Anqelite grounds
all is that
the not the
alleqations likely products
,i
in to dilute are
paraqraph Plaintiff's totally
,
88 on the
tr~np.-
27
on the
this
dissimilar
lack of similarity!'can be determined by examining
and the
28
10
1
photos 52.
and
in Defendants that products in
and
Plaintiff's deny public in aut fact are totally differ~;nt wrapping was not confused, the are not all the allegations in paragraphs 90
complaint.
2
~
in
91 confusing, and
the
4
R
Page 11 of 20
R
of be damaqed or injured under the law.
paper
and are
the
color
white
and therefore
Plaintiff
c~nnot
7
8
Q
(Unfair
Competition
Under
California
Business
&
Profes-
Filed 01/11/2008
10
11
sions
53.
Code section Defendants alleqations re:ference answer.
93 (but deny
172 and California (and and incorporating 1-17, the allegations in paragr, inclusive of this by each of them) answer the
Common Law)
in
~ 1IU "' :J Z Z -"' U)1-> W~< ~ Z
\D o N m
12
paraqraph facts 54.
any liability) .
92
by reall.eging paraqraphs admit
th~
13
pled Defendants
in
Document 13
U
14
15
~!:< ~Z,":JU «"'U). .J-o( .,W Zo
lB
55. confusion
member competed fairly in that they have
Defendants since of public would the be confused;
a California
deny products are so dissimilar
th~t~entionally that moreover.
caused
any no reasonable they
trademark.
~
~ ~
17
the
Case 3:07-cv-02391-JAH-POR
18
1!=}
have These
20
false 56. Defendants
D~'f~ndants has
alleqations deny deny been
state
are all the the
set
forth
in
paragraph alleqations alleqations (since there in in is
94. paraqraph paraqraph no cause of 95.
96 that action
21
22 57PlnintiTT
23 24
under California 2R 2R
damaqed
law) .
ANSWER TO EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Unfair
Professions Code-Section
Competition
Under
172-0(j"-"'a:nd-Cal'i.fornia
California
Common
Business
Law)
;\nn
27 28
11
~R-
Defendants alleqations
in
(and and incorporating reference answer. Lanham Act
any
thi~
each by the this the
hereby
of
them)
answer
the
1
paragraph
2
qR
by realleging paraqraphs inclusive they
claim (and
facts of or
~
pled Defendants
statute
.n law
in deny
c
1-17, that incorporate violated
~q-
4 oth~r
or in their answer) .
R
into
every
paraqraph
Page 12 of 20
6
60.
Howp:v~
Defendants has with regard
.
admit not to
venue
"-~ likely that venue ""--~""C may be proper)
that been undertnken
this
court
has
jurisdiction.
er, discovery
~ (though it seems
8
9
61.
100
Defendants
thp.ir
deny bathroom way th~ which
similar
the tissue packaging use the term "soft" is different, is in any tn type Plain-
all~gation
setr(forth
in
paraqraph
Filed 01/11/2008
10 that Angelite color Defendants been deny common law
in their answer) .
11
Pl a i nr_i TT ' ~--rnp
of do not to that claim (and hereby they violated the trademark. Lanham Act incorporate
the
~ 1IIJ "'
:> Z 01 -
co o N
12
z
different--and 13 tiff 14
62.
-"' U)1-> <
JJJ~<
U N)O LI. "'
Z
has Defendants statute
every
f:;~-
not
able
U
Document 13
O~=",J ~~< ~Z'":>U «"'U). .J-o( .'JJJ Zo
or
15
JJJ .J < C Z
any
t-- hi ~
other or
lR
into
17
paraqraph
~
~
Defendants deny been
law
the (since
allegations there
in is
paraqraph no cause
10?:
that
nT action
Case 3:07-cv-02391-JAH-POR
lP.
Plaintiff iniured 19
under California~state
has
ore£eaef'a"Ic~rawY"~
20
2'
22 2~ 24
2R
ANSWER TO NINTH\CLAIM (Unlawful in 64. Defendants paragraph facts 65. claim pled in violation of Importation (a) each of of
FOR RELIEF Goods Bearing Infringinq Marks
19 U8C 1576 (and
them)
answer and incorporating 1-17, admit that inclusive Plaintiff of has
the by this alleged
alleqations reference
in
103 by realleging paragraphs
thp-
26 27
2P.
answer.
Defendants (paragraph
a
104) but deny any liability.
statutory
12
Case 3:07-cv-02391-JAH-POR
~deny
Document 13
c.~=~=--_C~-"' allegation
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 13 of 20
1
66.
Defendants
the
set
forth
in
paragraph
105 to type Plain-
2 3
that
their
Angelite color
bathroo~ of the
tissue packaging use
is
in is
any
way
similar
Plaintiff's--the different--and tiff has 67. infringing 68. Plaintiff
under
different, "soft"
the which
4
5 6
~
Defendants been able to
do not
the
term
not
trademark. that in they have unlawfully 106. in is
.
Defendants goods Defendants has
California
deny
imported
any
as claimed deny been
state
paragraph
8
9
the
allegations (since there
law)
paragraph no cause
107 of
that
action
injured
law or
10
11
federal
ANSWER TO TENTH CLAIM FOR REL~~F
~" ~ " of State (Cancellation .,"~=-~c_..,~~-"~ Trademark "c Registration)
12
13 14
15 16
69. paragraph facts 70. trademark Plaintiff moreover confusion those
Defendants
(and
each
~f "them)
answer
the
allegations by reference answer. of
in
108 by realleging in paragraphs admit believes unreasonably
has
and incorporating 1-17, inclusive Plaintiff this delayed of seeks action in is this
the
pled
Defendants but has
that that
cancellation not its
that
its since
and
17 18 19
proper
claim there
bringing
(in
Defendant of the
a valid
trademark
is
no
20
21
separate set forth
products. in
Therefore,
Defendants
deny
allegations
paragraphs
109 and 110.
22 23 24 25 26 27
Defendants forth others: Plaintiff fees,
in
AFFIRMATIVE
request
DEFENSES FOR ALL DEFENDANTS
all the following those claIms
that~:rs4S5ur~-cre11y 1 through ~3 on
set
among
paragraphs
grounds
Plaintiff has no claim
has
unreasonably
delayed
in
filing to
this
action,
no injuries, under state
no damages, or federal
no right law, no right
attorneys' to any
in-
28
13
iunctive
1
relief no right state since
to cooperate. Defendants respectfully request atrial
since to no right have acted in faith
and shown
the injunctive to their attorneys' relief since Defendants have or treble
balance
of
hardships
tips
toward
De-
fendants,
2
valid
~
a
trademark, Defendants
fees
damaqes
4 willingness
R
by jury
Page 14 of 20
6 First
~
Affirmative State Facts Sufficient to Constitute a Cause
Defense
(Failure
to
8 of
9
Action) 71. Defendants, that fails
.
Filed 01/11/2008
and each alleqe state
Plaintiff's punitive
of the sufficient damage without merit. allegations to constitute a clause Complaint and each
claim
them, for of lack
are
informed
and believe
and
10 upon
11
basis to
that
that
relief
!D o N 0\ < Z
facts
j:: 1IiI UI :> Z Z j:: UI (/)N~ i1J..
1.2
action
and
l.~
sufficient
14
factual
~~cond ATTirmativ~
c~-~-,-~wc Unintentional conduct)
alleqations
D~f~ns~
and are
Document 13
O~=UlJ ~~< ~Z;-:>UU! (/) <
U
lR
~ (Innocent and
.~
16 72.
17
Defendants, faith,
willful,
and each innocent, not to
, valid
of
their,
conduct not infrinqement
at
all
times
malicious,
was in
and
~
~
Case 3:07-cv-02391-JAH-POR
IB
good unintentional regard
other
with any or
any
of property.
Plaintiff's
19
20
21
trademarks Defendants, example, balance and was not inherently Third this social utility attempts to and each of their. engage
intellectual
Further, conduct
in
had international outweighed
~nci~'
utility--for
t-r",np:
.~nn any unintentional
nn
22 2~ 24
2R
conduct wrongful. Affirmative Defense
26 27 28
(Conduct
Not
Knowinqly
Wronqful)
'4
1
73. ingly marks intellectual
unfair
Defendants, wrongful tradecomDetition In fact, or property, that
trademark.
and each conduct or were invalid. with regard to any of Plaintiff's
of
them,
did
not
engage
in
any
know-
2 3
other any marks
4
5 Defendant holds a valid California
claims
and had no knowledge
Page 15 of 20
6 7
Fourth (Conduct 74.
Defendants, each of their, at all ---"~--:: and r " conduct
Affirmative Not times or reckless any or for or fees justify was Malicious)
Defense
8
9
not or punitive treble Fifth (Reasonable 75. Defendants, upon through in discovery. sixth
(Estoppel) this lawsuit by stating
malicious unfair damage damages. Affirmative and Good Faith) of Plaintiff's them, has acted reasonably
and claims
or intended or claims for attorneys' to harm Plaintiff to support
oppressive
or\ willful
or!~eliberate
Filed 01/11/2008
10 or
11
ID o N (11 < Z
U N)O
~ 1IiI Z "' :J z
12 13
-"' (j11->
Defense
11J~<
U
Document 13
~~O.x
'"
LI.
.J
LI.
14
15 16 immediately claims
-
O",-"'.J . I1J .J < C Z
~z~3~ < ...'" ,"(j1 .J-< .'11J Zo
and each learning of
intellectual
that it was
property
willing
~
~ G
17
to and to cooperate
in
Case 3:07-cv-02391-JAH-POR
18 engage informal Affirmative discussions to resolve 19
any dispute
20
21
Defense
22
76. upon validity estopped up attorneys' company in from of learning of its Defendants offered
to
cooperate claims--even
with though trademarks--and with this lawsuit
Plaintiff Defendants Plaintiff in an effort
immediately dispute should to the
be drive
23 24 25 26 27
Plaintiff's
proceeding
fees and
harass
Defendants,
a small
family
toy Los Angeles. Moreover, Plaintiff should be estopped
28
15
Case 3:07-cv-02391-JAH-POR
---"..~ from
1
Document 13
,.~-relief
\ Plaintiff
Filed 01/11/2008
'~~.7'C~-" since
has
Page 16 of 20
receiving
any
trademark
injunctive
and
Defendant
hold
a valid
California 2
unreasonably
delayed
in
seeking
3
relief. Seventh Affirmative Hands) in its that good lawyers others
Defense
Defense
4 (Unclean
5
77.
6
Defendants court less
have claiming
acted via
faith that
but
Plaintiff
has shoppers
come
7
into somehow
Hispanic
are 8
sophisticated
Eighth Affirmative
and will
be confused.
9 (Comparative Fault) if any,
10 78.
11
Plaintiff's
its own
damages,
comparative
were
" and/or
caused
fault of
in
whole other
or
third
in
part
12
by
~=~-~ fault
parties
13
whose
identity Ninth
befend~pts Affirmative
I, I, good
do not
yet
know.
Defense
14 (Action
15
79. Defendants acted in
of
Others)
faith in dealing with an overseas
16
manufacturer
17
and agents who caused engaged any. in
and it Plaintiff's harming
is
the
actions if
of
the any,
third
party,
may
or 18 have 19
parties, been if
damages,
and who
Plaintiff's
intellectual
property
rights,
20
Tenth
21
Affirmative Dilution)
Defense
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
80.
dilute
(Trademark Defendants
Plaintiff's
sale
of~ngefIt~~waE~so
o,r"confuse t~e
minuscule
public or
as
lead
not
to
to
any
trademark
likelihood
of
confusion. Eleventh Affirmative Defense
(Waiver)
16
81.
led and believe and
1
Defendants, that basis riqht to relief
Twel ft~.A:f~f-i,rm,
and each allege requested f~ns~ in the Complaint. that Plaintiff has waived any
of
them,
are
infl
upon 2 obtain
~
the
4
(Lach~s)
R
82.
Defendants, that basis
~rp-
and each allege barred by even thouqh 2003. since
own
action
of Plaintiff's
this
them, claims
are
informed
and believe
and
Page 17 of 20
6
upon
7
that
in)!brinqinq
virtue
its laches
of had a valid Thirteenth Affirmative not
are led and believe infl
8 Defendant
9
California DeTen~~
Trademark
on file
Filed 01/11/2008
10
(Trademarks
11
Valid)
and
vaJid
83.
\0 o N
"'
Defendants,
and
each
of
them
j: 1l1/ "'
:J z
12
z
upon
13
that basis not either
/( 'ior owners
alleqe assiqnment Plainti£f.~,o.. marks, other
Affi
that to trademarks, in
Plaintiff
has
obtained
-"' Inl-> < z
1lJD:<
u
'4
or elsewhere r~cDrd the with
Fourteenth
trademarks, and/or failed statutory .tive or them, are
a proper Business
or
the
California
failed
Document 13
O~=",J In . IIJ .J < C Z
to
affix
~z~5~ III < .""' ~-O( .'IIJ Zo
lR
properly
16 failed to c
to
properly obliqations. Defense
on Law
notices,
~
~ ~
ly
17 18 19
R4.
Case 3:07-cv-02391-JAH-POR
(No Valid Defendants,
Plaintiff Lanharn Act, California has failed to
Statutory of
state
Claims)
20
that
and each
informed
cause & Professions of
and action CndA
belip-vp-
under
21
the
22 23
17200
Fifteenth
section the
Affirmative
et
seq
as well
as under
common law.
nefens~
24
2R
(No Attorneys' 85. Defendants,
to attorneys'
.,
Fees)
and
/( deny
2A
th~t
fees
81xteenth
Plaintiff under
..
i~
27 28
entitled
the
Afflrmatlve
CI
i\
Lon law
Defense
or
any
statute.
17
1
(No
P.f\-
Treble
nnn
t-h~ti~
Darnaqes)
2 Defendants, tn treble
nt-hp,..
each costs, statutory
at their conduct was not
of or any
t-imp
them, any
nr
deny
P'~;nt-;TT
~
Ant-it-1An
damaqes,
since or
f'~it-h
4
("!nmmnn
l~w deliberate,
~ v~lir'J ~~lirnrni~ trnnp-mnrk.
~nh~ncement malicious and was in fact in q,
R
willful,
l1nr'JAr
Page 18 of 20
R 'I' .c;~v~n t~~nth.,~Af£irmab,~ve"D~ f ~n s ~
p,
(Punitive R7-
Damaqes) each
t-h~tPl~int-if'f'
Q
Defendants,
;=Inn
of
them,
deny
;~
Filed 01/11/2008
10 11
entitled sufficient individual Eiqhteenth (Improper 88. to
manufacture
WHEREFORE DEFENDANTS
to factual or Affirmative Parties) them, (including but alleqe that not Plaintiff limited Defense corporate Defendant. basis to iustify punitive damages against
punitive
damaqes
since
Plaintiff
has
not
set
forth
i-h~
~
j: 1LI! "'
:J Z 0\ -
ID o N
l~
'2
Z
(/II->
-"' <
11J~< U
Z
Document 13
II. ii:~0!!10 .» -
'" .J
,.II.
'4
. I1J .J < c Z I1J .J ~
O'U-",.J
~z~5~ <...f-(/l ...'"
lR
lR
Defendants, indispensable
in China) .
, AND"EACH-aF.-,'I:HEMprav
and each parties
of
failed to the
.J-<
""I11J
Zo
N(/I
ioin
<
v
'7
lP.
Case 3:07-cv-02391-JAH-POR
as
follows
:
1.Q
1. 2. as any
3'rh"t
That That statutory Defendants. fees.
nefendant's Defendants California be
Plaintiff Plaintiff enhancement be denied or
take
nothinq
by virtue costs
of
its and attorneys' punitive damaqes.
complaint. fees as w~ll
2(1
21
22 2~
attorneys'
4.
~.
and each
of
them.
be awarded
C!n~t-~
~nn
24
rrh~t
rrh~t
trademark awarded a rulinq
not from
be the
canceled.
2R 2R
Court claim for
~11~h nt-hpr
that
Plaintiff's
(;;-
punitive
~nn Ti
damaqes
hpr rpl
lacked
i P-f ;'\~
probable
t-hp ~nllrt-
cause.
may
n~~m
27
2P.
F'nr
18
Case 3:07-cv-02391-JAH-POR
Document 13
'~
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 19 of 20
just
1
and proper.
THAT DEFENDANTS January 11, AND EACH OF THEM HAVE A JURY 2007 TRIAL.
2
Dated:
3 4
KAZANJIAN & MARTINETTI RONALD MARTINErTI, ESQ.
By
~~~t\~~
5 6 7
Ronald Martinetti Attorneys for Defendants Lee's General Toys, Inc. and John Lee
8
9
10
-
11
ID O (\I cn
12 13
14
1&1 :J z 1&1
~
~ Z z O , It 10 0111 "' N I,," :! " I J .c ~ ~ i U .-.~ "' I "' II! < .J III .c a Z 11! .J ~
O N 111
15 16 17
18 19
20
21
22 23 24
25
26 27
28
19
Case 3:07-cv-02391-JAH-POR
Document 13
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 20 of 20
PROOF OF SERVICE 2
3 4 5 6
~
I am employed in Los Angeles the age of eighteen years and not My business address is 520 East 91206. On Demand this for
by
County, a party Wilson
California; to the within Glendale,
am over action. California
I
date I served Jury Trial,
---"," delivery
Defendants'
Answer \
;address
to
Complaint
and
personal
(to
the
below)
xplacing envelope with postage Post Office mail box by a true copy thereof thereon fully prepaid, at Glendale, California, /1, suite 400 92130-2071 enclosed in a in the United addressed to: sealed states
8
9 10
11
j: 1w"' 10 o N -
12 13
Stephen Swinton, Esq. Latham & Watkins 12636 High Bluff Drive, San Diego, California Tel. 858-523-5400 FAX 858-523-5450
:)
Z Z -"' (/)1-> bJ~ot
LI. .x ., .J
~~ot
0\ ot Z
LI. -
U
14
15 16
and via
FAX to
counsel
for
Georgia-Pacific
Consumer
Prod.
(x)
~Z'":)U ot<.,(/) .J-o(
.'bJ 7
. bJ
.J
C ot
N ! II!
Z bJ .J ~
17 18 19
(x) BY MAIL I sealed and placed such envelope for collection and mailing to be deposited in the mail on the same day in the ordinary course of business at Glendale, California. I am readily familiar with our law firm's practice of colJecting and processing correspQndeng"e_anq docu~~n.t~~,..!.Q.Lm.~j1ipg. They are ~PQ~iteg with the U.S. Postal Service on the s&me day as dated, in the ordinary course of business. (State) I declare under penalty of perjury the State of California and the united states is true and correct.
(Federal
0
20
21
lawS--Of foregoing
{x)
under that
the thp.
22 23
The papers
I that
are
also
to
be filed
of and
via
perjury correct.
e-mail.
of the state of California
24
25 26 27 28
declare under the foregoing
penalty is true
Executed
this
January
11,
2008
at
Glendale,
California
91206
~ "" 1
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms