UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

 

 

STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a

Washington corporation; and STARBUCKS

U.S. BRANDS, INC., a California

corporation 

 

Plaintiffs

 

v.

 

WOLFE'S BOROUGH COFFEE. INC., a

New Hampshire corporation, d/b/a BLACK

BEAR MICRO ROASTERY,

 

Defendant

 

 

 

 

No. Ol-CV-5981 (LTS) (THK)

 

 

DEFENDANT'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS'

FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

Now comes the Defendant, Wolfe's Borough Coffee, Inc. and answers the Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories as follows:

 

INTERROGATORY NO. 1

To the extent Black Bear's response to any of the Requests for Admission set forth in the accompanying Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Admission to Defendant is anything other than an unqualified admission, please (i) state all facts upon which Black Bear's refusal to admit is based; (ii) identify all persons with knowledge of any such facts; (iii) identify all documents that support Black Bear's refusal to admit; and (iv) state all facts supporting Black Bear's Counterclaim.

ANSWER NO. l (i) - (iii)

Note:

The Defendant shall treat section (iv) of the Plaintiffs' interrogatory as a separate inquiry, unrelated to the first three sections, to be addressed in this pleading below.

Request for Admission 5
(i)       The Defendant's objection to this request is not based on factual matters.
(ii)      Not applicable.
(iii)     Not applicable.

Request for Admission 6

(i)       The Defendant's objection to this request is not based on factual matters.

(ii)      Not applicable.

(iii)     Not applicable.

Request for Admission 7

(i)       During its communication of August of 1997, Starbucks advised the Defendant that it objected to the Defendant's use of the term "Charbucks" as disparaging and dilutive of the Starbucks trademark, not due to any actual confusion among consumers.

(ii)      James 0. Clark.

(iii)     See letter of Polly Kim Close, dated August 15, 1997, produced in Response to Plaintiffs' Amended First Request to Defendant for the Production of Documents

Request for Admission 9

(i)       The Defendant has no information or evidence, other than statements based on opinion and/or conjecture, that would either support or counter this statement.

(ii)      Not applicable.

(iii)     Not applicable.

Request for Admission 10

(i)       The Defendant does not presently use the name "Charbucks" name to identify a product that Black Bear offers for sale to the public; it does use the name "Mister Charbucks" to identify a product that Black Bear offers for sale to the public.

(ii)      James 0.Clark.

(iii)     Refer to product labels, produced in Response to Plaintiffs' Amended First Request to Defendant for the Production of Documents.

Request for Admission 11

(i)       The Defendant does not presently manufacture and sell a product under the name "Charbucks;" it does manufacture and sell a product under the name "Mister Charbucks."

(ii)      James 0. Clark.

(iii)     Refer to product labels, produced in Response to Plaintiffs' Amended First Request to Defendant for the Production of Documents.

Request for Admission 13

(i)       The Defendant first sold and shipped coffee under the name "Charbucks Blend" to a customer on April 7,1997.

(ii)      James 0. Clark.

(iii)     Copies of invoices and/or sales records to be produced in Response to Plaintiffs' Amended First Request to Defendant for the Production of Documents.

Request for Admission 14
(i)       The Defendant has no information or evidence, other than statements based on opinion and/or conjecture, that would either support or counter this statement.
(ii)      Not applicable.
(iii)     Not applicable.

Request for Admission 16
(i)       The Defendant has no information or evidence, other than statements based on
               opinion and/or conjecture, that would either support or counter this statement.
(ii)      Not applicable.
(iii)     Not applicable.

Request for Admission 17
(i)       The Defendant has no information or evidence, other than statements based on
               opinion and/or conjecture, that would either support or counter this statement.
(ii)      Not applicable.
(iii)     Not applicable.

 

ANSWER NO. 1 (iv)

The Defendant is not aware of any evidence that the Defendant's use of the term "Charbucks" has caused or is likely to cause any actual consumer confusion.

The Defendant is not aware of any evidence that the Defendant's use of the term "Charbucks" has caused or is likely to cause a negative and damaging association in the minds of consumers.

The Defendant is not aware of any evidence that the Defendant's use of the term "Charbucks" has caused or is likely to cause a tarnishment of the Plaintiffs' reputation.

The Defendant is not aware of any evidence that the Defendant's use of the term "Charbucks" has caused or is likely to cause a diminution in the value and distinctiveness of the Plaintiffs' trademark.

The Defendant is not aware of any evidence that the Defendant's use of the term "Charbucks" has caused or is likely to cause any loss of business or other damages to the Plaintiffs.

The Defendant has not used the term "Charbucks" in order to trade off on the goodwill of the Plaintiffs in order to benefit commercially.

The Plaintiffs have no evidentiary basis on which to support its claims.

The Plaintiffs have falsely represented to the Defendant, to the public and to the court that they have the exclusive right to use of the term "Charbucks."

The Plaintiffs have undertaken to purposefully undermine the Defendant's insurance coverage, thereby preventing it from being able to mount a legal defense and to avoid having this matter heard and decided on its merits.

The Defendant reserves the right to supplement its above Answers in a timely manner prior to the trial of this matter

 

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 19th day of March, 2002

______________________________________

James 0. Clark. President

Wolfe's Borough Coffee, Inc

As to objections: