|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
KAREN DUDNIKOV, a/k/a TABBERONE, v.
Major League Baseball Properties, a New York Corporation PLAINTIFFS' ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
|
|
Pro se Plaintiffs Karen Dudnikov, and Michael Meadors, pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 7(a), present their answer to Counterclaims by Defendant Major League
Baseball Properties ("MLBP"), and allege as follows:
1. The counterclaims deliberately, without authorization or severance of parties from the Court, omit Plaintiff Michael Meadors and therefore should be considered as a whole to be defective. 2. The Answer or Counterclaims by MLPB does not state reasons or proof why Plaintiff Michael Meadors does not have standing and without such all counterclaims should be considered defective. 3. Plaintiffs accept as stated the following paragraphs of the MLBP Counterclaims: 2, 23, 33, and 35. 4. In as much as these paragraphs may contain an allegation of wrongdoing, the Plaintiffs deny the following paragraphs of the MLBP Counterclaims: 1, 3, 6 through 14, 16 through 22. 5. In paragraphs 4 and 5 MLBP omits jurisdiction under 17 U.S.C.§101 et seq which Plaintiffs included. 6. Plaintiffs deny assertion of "enormous goodwill" alleged in paragraph 15 of the Counterclaim. Plaintiffs believe MLPB knew, or reasonably should have known, of allegations that licensees were, and are, using third-world sweat shops and forced labor in the production of licensed MLBP products. 7. In as much as these paragraphs contain allegations of wrongdoing, the Plaintiffs deny the following paragraphs of the MLBP Counterclaims: 24 through 32, and 34. Counterclaim Count One: Trademark Infringement – Federal Law 8. The sale and subsequent use of copyrighted fabric falls wholly under the copyright laws and are not trademark infringements. The fact the copyrighted fabrics contain images that were trademarked is not sufficient to invoke trademark protection nor does it fall under trademark definition. Therefore the claim of trademark infringement is invalid and should be dismissed. 9. Plaintiffs deny any wrongdoings as alleged in Counterclaim Count One, paragraphs 36 through 41.Counterclaim Count Two: Unfair Competition – Federal Law 10. The sale and subsequent use of copyrighted fabric falls wholly under the copyright laws and are not trademark unfair competition. The fact the copyrighted fabrics contain images that were trademarked is not sufficient to invoke trademark protection nor does it fall under trademark definition. Therefore the claim of unfair competition is invalid and should be dismissed.11. Plaintiffs deny any wrongdoings as alleged in Counterclaim Count Two, paragraphs 42 through 46. Counterclaim Count Three: Common Law Trademark Infringemen and Unfair Competition – Colorado Law 12. The sale and subsequent use of copyrighted fabric falls wholly under the copyright laws and are not trademark infringements or unfair competition. The fact the copyrighted fabrics contain images that were trademarked is not sufficient to invoke trademark protection nor does it fall under trademark definition. Therefore the claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition are invalid and should be dismissed.13. Plaintiffs deny any wrongdoings as alleged in Counterclaim Count Three, paragraphs 47 through 52. Counterclaim Count Four: Trademark Infringement – Arizona Law 14. The sale and subsequent use of copyrighted fabric falls wholly under the copyright laws and are not trademark infringements. The fact the copyrighted fabrics contain images that were trademarked is not sufficient to invoke trademark protection nor does it fall under trademark definition. Therefore the claim of trademark infringement under Arizona law is invalid and should be dismissed.15. Plaintiffs deny any wrongdoings as alleged in Counterclaim Count Four, paragraphs 53 through 58. Counterclaim Count Five: Colorado Consumer Protection Act 16. Plaintiffs deny any wrongdoings as alleged in Counterclaim Count Five, paragraphs 59 through 64.Conclusion 17. Plaintiffs deny any wrongdoing not already denied.Cross Claims 18. The Plaintiffs assert no cross claims therefore the pleadings are closed.Dated June 26, 2003 |
|
Respectively submitted,
_________________________________ pro se Plaintiffs |