|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DEFENDANT'S
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED
FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Now
comes the Defendant, Wolfe's Borough Coffee, Inc. and responds to the
Plaintiffs' Amended First Requests for Admissions as follows:
1. Admit that Black Bear was aware
of the existence of Starbucks at the time Black Bear began manufacturing and
selling a blend of roasted coffee under the name "Charbucks Blend."
Response.
Admitted.
2. Admit
that Black Bear was aware of the existence of the Starbucks Mark at the time
Black Bear began manufacturing and selling a blend of roasted coffee under the
name "Charbucks Blend."
Response.
Admitted.
3. Admit that Starbucks' trademark
registrations attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint are valid.
Response.
Admitted.
4. Admit
that the Starbucks Mark became a valid trademark before Black Bear began
manufacturing and selling a blend of roasted coffee under the name
"Charbucks Blend."
Response.
Admitted.
5. Admit that the Starbucks Mark
is "famous" within the meaning of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act,
15 U.S.C. §§ 1125(c) and 1127.
Response.
Objection. This request asks that the Defendant draw a legal conclusion
and is not a matter within the scope of Rule 26(b)(l) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, this is not a proper request for
admission and the Defendant objects thereto.
6. Admit that the Starbucks Mark became
"famous" within the meaning of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act, 15
U.S.C. §§ 1125(c) and 1127, before Black Bear began manufacturing and selling
a blend of roasted coffee under the name "Charbucks Blend."
Response.
Objection. This request asks that the Defendant draw a legal conclusion and is not a matter within the scope of Rule 26(b)(l) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, this is not a proper request for
admission and the Defendant objects thereto.
7. Admit that, no later than August
1997, Black Bear was informed by Starbucks that Black Bear's use of the name
"Charbucks Blend" had created and would continue to create confusion
among consumers that Black Bear's product is affiliated with or sponsored by
Starbucks.
Response.
The Defendant admits that on or about August of 1997 it was contacted by
Starbucks and was advised that Starbucks objected to its use of the term
"Charbucks" as disparaging and dilutive of the Starbucks
trademark. The remaining allegations of
this request are denied.
8. Admit that after August 1997,
Black Bear has manufactured and sold a blend of roasted coffee under the name
"Charbucks Blend" with knowledge that Starbucks claimed such actions
to infringe and dilute the Starbucks Mark.
Response.
Admitted.
9. Admit that Black Bear's use of
the name "Charbucks" causes consumers who
hear or read that name to think of Starbucks.
Response.
The Defendant has made reasonable inquiry and the information known or
readily obtainable by it is insufficient to enable the Defendant to admit or
deny this request as it seeks the subjective impressions of unknown third
parties. 10.
Admit that Black Bear uses the "Charbucks" name to identify a
product that Black Bear offers for sale to the public.
Response.
The Defendant admits that it uses the name "Mister Charbucks"
to identify a product that it offers for sale to the public. The remaining
allegations of this request are denied
11. Admit that Black Bear manufactures and
sells a blend of roasted coffee under the
"Charbucks" name.
Response.
The Defendant admits that it manufactures and sells a blend of roasted
coffee under the name "Mister Charbucks." The remaining
allegations of this request are denied.
12. Admit that in February 1997, Black Bear
developed a dark roasted blend of coffee that it named "Charbucks
Blend."
Response.
Admitted.
13. Admit that Black's Bear's "Charbucks
Blend" coffee was first sold to customers on or about February 24, 1997.
Response.
Denied. Answering further, the Defendant admits that it first sold and
shipped coffee under the name "Charbucks Blend" to a customer
on April 7, 1997.
14. Admit the name "Charbucks"
conjures up the image of charred coffee beans.
Response.
The Defendant has made reasonable inquiry and the information known or
readily obtainable by it is insufficient to enable the Defendant to admit or
deny this request as it seeks the subjective impressions of unknown third
parties. Answering further, the
Defendant admits that its officers and/or agents have opined that the name
"Charbucks" conjures up the image of charred beans.
15. Admit that the "Charbucks" name
rhymes with Starbucks.
Response.
Admitted.
16. Admit that the Starbucks Mark is held in
high regard by consumers.
Response.
The Defendant has made reasonable inquiry and the information known or
readily obtainable by it is insufficient to enable the Defendant to admit or
deny this request as it seeks the subjective impressions of unknown third
parties. Answering further, the Defendant admits that its officers and/or agents
have opined that the Starbucks Mark is held in high regard by consumers.
17. Admit that the use of the word
"char" in the "Charbucks" name has obvious
Response.
The Defendant has made reasonable inquiry and the information known or
readily obtainable by it is insufficient to enable the Defendant to admit or
deny this request as it seeks the subjective impressions of unknown third
parties. Answering further, the Defendant admits that its officers and/or agents
have opined that the word "char" in the "Charbucks" name
|
|
Respectfully submitted, Counsel for
the Defendant,
110 Cedar
Street, Suite 250 Wellesley
Hills, MA 02481 (781)
237-0033
|
| Dated:
March 19, 2002 |