Dr. Permagreen Answer

USDC IN/ND case 2:23-cv-00341-PPS-JEM document 25 filed 12/08/23 page 1 of 23
I‭ N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT‬

‭FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA‬
‭ erma-Green Supreme, Inc., an Indiana‬

P
‭corporation,‬
‭Plaintiff,‬
‭ ase No. 2:23-cv-00341-PPS-JEM‬
C
‭v.‬ ‭Hon. Philip P. Simon‬
‭ ichael Edward Klott, an individual;‬

M
‭Dr. Permagreen, LLC, a Michigan limited‬
‭liability company; and FTW Investments‬
‭LLC, a Michigan limited liability company,‬
‭Defendants.‬
‭ wanson, Martin & Bell, LLP‬

S ‭ . Kizy Law‬
B
‭William D. Patterson‬ ‭Brandon Kizy‬
‭Attorney for Plaintiff‬ ‭Attorney for Defendants‬
‭330 North Wabash, Suite 3300‬ ‭6476 Orchard Lake Rd., Ste. D‬
‭Chicago, IL 60611‬ ‭West Bloomfield, MI 48322‬
‭Phone: (312) 321-8445‬ ‭Phone: (248) 860-8285‬
‭Fax: (312)321-0990‬ ‭Fax: (248) 301-0453‬
‭Email: wpatterson@smbtrials.com‬ ‭Email: brandon@bkizylaw.com‬
‭DEFENDANT’S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT‬
‭Now‬‭come‬‭the‬‭Defendants,‬‭Michael‬‭Edward‬‭Klott‬‭(“Klott”),‬‭Dr.‬‭Permagreen‬‭LLC‬
‭(“Dr.‬ ‭Permagreen”)‬ ‭and‬ ‭FTW‬ ‭Investments‬ ‭LLC‬ ‭(“FTW‬ ‭Investments”),‬ ‭Klott,‬ ‭Dr.‬
‭Permagreen‬ ‭and‬ ‭FTW‬ ‭Investments‬ ‭are‬ ‭collectively‬ ‭referred‬‭to‬‭as‬‭“Defendants,”‬‭and‬‭by‬
‭and‬‭through‬‭their‬‭attorney,‬‭Brandon‬‭Kizy,‬‭for‬‭their‬‭Answer‬‭to‬‭Plaintiff’s‬‭Complaint‬‭state‬
‭as follows:‬
‭INTRODUCTION‬
‭1.‬ ‭This‬‭action‬‭involves‬‭numerous‬‭violations‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Lanham‬‭Act,‬‭15‬‭U.S.C.‬‭§§‬‭1051‬‭et.‬
‭seq.‬ ‭(“Lanham‬ ‭Act”),‬ ‭including‬ ‭trademark‬ ‭infringement‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ ‭32(1)‬ ‭of‬
‭the‬ ‭Lanham‬ ‭Act,‬ ‭15‬ ‭U.S.C.‬ ‭§1114(1);‬ ‭False‬ ‭Designation‬ ‭of‬ ‭origin‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬
‭1‬
‭43(a)‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Lanham‬ ‭Act,‬ ‭15‬ ‭U.S.C.‬ ‭§1125;‬ ‭and‬ ‭for‬ ‭False‬ ‭and‬ ‭Deceptive‬
‭Advertising‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ ‭43(a)‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Lanham‬‭Act,‬‭15‬‭U.S.C.‬‭§1125.‬‭This‬‭action‬
‭also‬ ‭alleges‬ ‭violations‬ ‭of‬ ‭Indiana’s‬ ‭Deceptive‬ ‭Trade‬ ‭Practices‬ ‭Act‬ ‭and‬ ‭Unfair‬
‭Competition.‬
‭ANSWER: Neither admit nor deny, but leave Plaintiff to its proofs.‬
‭2.‬ ‭The‬‭claims‬‭arise‬‭from‬‭the‬‭willful‬‭and‬‭deliberate‬‭efforts‬‭of‬‭Defendants‬‭to‬‭compete‬
‭with‬ ‭Perma-Green‬ ‭by‬‭trading‬‭upon‬‭Perma-Green’s‬‭goodwill‬‭and‬‭reputation,‬‭and‬
‭infringing‬ ‭upon‬ ‭PermaGreen’s‬ ‭trademarks‬ ‭and‬ ‭intellectual‬ ‭property‬ ‭to‬ ‭create‬
‭confusion‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭marketplace‬ ‭and‬ ‭bolster‬ ‭their‬ ‭own‬ ‭sales‬ ‭by‬ ‭falsely‬ ‭describing‬
‭products‬‭as‬‭manufactured‬‭by,‬‭branded‬‭by,‬‭associated‬‭with,‬‭sponsored‬‭by,‬‭or‬‭sold‬
‭by Perma-Green.‬
‭ANSWER: Defendants deny this allegation because it is false.‬
‭3.‬ ‭Unless‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭are‬ ‭permanently‬ ‭enjoined‬ ‭from‬ ‭infringing‬ ‭Perma-Green’s‬
‭intellectual‬ ‭property‬ ‭rights,‬ ‭and‬ ‭otherwise‬ ‭deceiving‬ ‭the‬ ‭consuming‬ ‭public‬ ‭and‬
‭tarnishing‬ ‭Perma-Green’s‬ ‭reputation,‬ ‭Perma-Green‬ ‭will‬ ‭continue‬ ‭to‬ ‭suffer‬
‭substantial ongoing and irreparable harm.‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭deny‬ ‭substantial‬ ‭ongoing‬ ‭and‬ ‭irreparable‬ ‭harm‬ ‭because‬
‭Defendants‬ ‭neither‬‭deceived‬‭the‬‭consuming‬‭public‬‭nor‬‭tarnished‬‭Perma-Green’s‬
‭reputation.‬
‭PARTIES‬
‭4.‬ ‭Perma-Green‬‭is‬‭an‬‭Indiana‬‭company‬‭based‬‭in‬‭Valparaiso,‬‭Indiana.‬‭Perma-Green‬
‭was‬ ‭founded‬ ‭in‬ ‭1973‬ ‭and‬ ‭provides‬ ‭lawncare‬‭equipment‬‭to‬‭discerning‬‭customers‬
‭nationwide.‬ ‭PermaGreen‬ ‭invented‬ ‭and‬ ‭patented‬ ‭the‬ ‭first‬ ‭dual-injection‬ ‭spray‬
‭gun,‬ ‭the‬ ‭first‬ ‭mechanized‬ ‭walk-behind‬‭spreader‬‭sprayer,‬‭and‬‭the‬‭industry’s‬‭first‬
‭2‬
‭stand-on‬‭spreader‬‭sprayer.‬‭Perma-Green‬‭is‬‭an‬‭industry‬‭leader‬‭in‬‭both‬‭originality‬
‭and design of its high quality products.‬
‭5.‬ ‭Defendant‬ ‭Klott‬ ‭is‬ ‭an‬ ‭individual‬ ‭who‬ ‭resides‬ ‭at‬ ‭55‬ ‭Henry‬ ‭Deblouw,‬ ‭Memphis,‬
‭Michigan.‬
‭ANSWER: Admit.‬
‭6.‬ ‭Defendant‬ ‭Dr.‬ ‭Permagreen‬ ‭is‬ ‭a‬ ‭Michigan‬ ‭limited‬ ‭liability‬ ‭company‬ ‭for‬ ‭which‬
‭Klott is the Registered Agent.‬
‭7.‬ ‭Defendant‬ ‭FTW‬ ‭Investments‬ ‭is‬ ‭a‬ ‭Michigan‬ ‭limited‬ ‭liability‬ ‭company‬ ‭for‬ ‭which‬
‭Klott is the Registered Agent.‬
‭JURISDICTION AND VENUE‬
‭8.‬ ‭This‬‭Court‬‭has‬‭subject‬‭matter‬‭jurisdiction‬‭of‬‭Perma-Green’s‬‭Complaint‬‭under‬‭one‬
‭or‬ ‭more‬ ‭sections‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Lanham‬ ‭Act,‬ ‭15‬ ‭U.S.C.‬ ‭§§‬ ‭1051‬ ‭et.‬‭seq.‬‭(“Lanham‬‭Act”),‬
‭thus the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.‬
‭9.‬ ‭Personal‬ ‭jurisdiction‬ ‭exists‬ ‭over‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭because‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭transact‬
‭business‬ ‭in‬ ‭this‬ ‭District,‬ ‭including‬ ‭the‬ ‭solicitation‬ ‭and‬ ‭sale‬ ‭of‬ ‭goods‬ ‭and‬ ‭other‬
‭acts‬‭into‬‭the‬‭District‬‭that‬‭give‬‭rise‬‭to‬‭the‬‭claims‬‭in‬‭this‬‭Complaint.‬‭Defendant‬‭also‬
‭deceptively‬ ‭made‬ ‭purchases‬ ‭from‬ ‭Perma-Green,‬ ‭which‬ ‭is‬ ‭located‬ ‭within‬ ‭the‬
‭District.‬
‭3‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭transacted‬ ‭business‬‭in‬‭this‬‭District,‬‭however,‬‭Defendants‬
‭deny any deceptive practices or purchases regarding Plaintiff.‬
‭10.‬ ‭Venue‬ ‭is‬ ‭proper‬‭pursuant‬‭to‬‭28‬‭U.S.C.‬‭§1391‬‭because‬‭this‬‭cause‬‭of‬‭action‬‭arises‬
‭out of events occurring in part or in full in this District.‬
‭FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS‬
‭Perma-Green’s Intellectual Property‬
‭11.‬ ‭Perma-Green‬ ‭is‬ ‭a‬ ‭manufacturing‬ ‭company‬ ‭based‬ ‭in‬ ‭Valparaiso,‬ ‭Indiana‬ ‭that‬
‭since‬‭1973‬‭has‬‭sold‬‭commercial‬‭lawn-care‬‭products‬‭throughout‬‭the‬‭United‬‭States.‬
‭12.‬‭Perma-Green‬ ‭holds‬ ‭the‬ ‭standard‬ ‭character‬ ‭trademark‬ ‭for‬ ‭PERMAGREEN,‬‭Reg.‬
‭No.‬ ‭3590584‬ ‭(the‬ ‭“Mark”),‬ ‭in‬ ‭Class‬ ‭7‬ ‭for‬ ‭commercial‬ ‭lawn‬ ‭equipment.‬
‭Perma-Green continues to use its mark throughout the United States.‬
‭13.‬‭Perma-Green’s‬‭Mark‬‭is‬‭incontestable,‬‭having‬‭been‬‭in‬‭use‬‭since‬‭at‬‭least‬‭2003‬‭and‬
‭first registered on March 17, 2009.‬
‭14.‬ ‭The‬ ‭Mark‬ ‭is‬ ‭instantly‬ ‭recognizable‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭commercial‬ ‭lawn‬ ‭care‬ ‭industry‬ ‭and‬
‭represents‬ ‭the‬ ‭fifty‬ ‭years‬ ‭of‬ ‭innovation‬ ‭and‬ ‭care‬ ‭that‬‭Perma-Green‬‭has‬‭put‬‭into‬
‭its products.‬
‭15.‬‭The‬‭Mark‬‭is‬‭so‬‭well‬‭known‬‭in‬‭the‬‭industry‬‭that‬‭other‬‭companies‬‭desire‬‭to‬‭become‬
‭and‬ ‭have‬ ‭become‬ ‭authorized‬ ‭resellers‬ ‭of‬ ‭Perma-Green‬ ‭equipment‬ ‭and‬ ‭parts.‬
‭4‬
‭Companies‬ ‭designated‬ ‭as‬ ‭authorized‬ ‭resellers‬ ‭derive‬ ‭considerable‬ ‭value‬‭in‬‭their‬
‭ability to use the Mark for selling commercial lawn care equipment and parts.‬
‭16.‬‭Perma-Green‬ ‭protects‬ ‭the‬ ‭integrity‬ ‭of‬ ‭its‬ ‭brand‬ ‭by‬ ‭exclusively‬ ‭permitting‬
‭authorized resellers to use the Mark.‬
‭17.‬‭The‬ ‭Perma-Green‬ ‭name‬ ‭and‬ ‭Mark‬ ‭provide‬ ‭Perma-Green‬ ‭with‬ ‭considerable‬
‭goodwill,‬ ‭in‬‭part‬‭because‬‭of‬‭Perma-Green’s‬‭commitment‬‭to‬‭manufacturing‬‭high‬
‭quality‬ ‭products‬‭and‬‭its‬‭commitment‬‭to‬‭providing‬‭customers‬‭with‬‭a‬‭high‬‭quality‬
‭of service..‬
‭“Dr. Permagreen” Infringes Perma-Green’s Mark‬
‭18.‬‭Defendants‬ ‭offer‬ ‭and‬ ‭sell‬ ‭equipment‬ ‭allegedly‬ ‭capable‬ ‭of‬ ‭working‬ ‭with‬
‭Perma-Green’s products and use and exploit Perma-Green’s goodwill.‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭offer‬ ‭and‬ ‭sell‬ ‭equipment‬‭compatible‬‭with‬‭Perma-Green’s‬
‭equipment–just‬ ‭as‬ ‭Goodyear‬ ‭and‬ ‭BelleTire‬ ‭sell‬ ‭tires‬ ‭compatible‬ ‭with‬ ‭Ford‬ ‭and‬
‭GM‬ ‭vehicles–and‬ ‭do‬‭not‬‭exploit‬‭Perma-Green’s‬‭goodwill.‬‭Defendants‬‭purchased‬
‭parts‬ ‭and‬ ‭equipment‬ ‭directly‬ ‭from‬ ‭Perma-Green‬ ‭which‬ ‭were‬ ‭simply‬ ‭resold‬ ‭by‬
‭Defendants.‬
‭19.‬‭For‬ ‭example,‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭have‬ ‭sold‬ ‭more‬ ‭than‬ ‭1,400‬ ‭products‬ ‭on‬ ‭e-Bay.‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭have‬ ‭sold‬ ‭nearly‬ ‭1,400‬ ‭products‬ ‭in‬ ‭total‬ ‭through‬ ‭Ebay,‬
‭however,‬ ‭of‬ ‭those‬ ‭1,400‬ ‭products‬ ‭sold,‬‭only‬‭approximately‬‭50‬‭of‬‭those‬‭products‬
‭were related Perma-Green products.‬
‭5‬
‭20.‬‭Defendants‬‭have‬‭created‬‭considerable‬‭confusion‬‭regarding‬‭the‬‭source‬‭of‬‭origin‬‭of‬
‭goods‬ ‭sold‬ ‭by‬ ‭Dr.‬ ‭Permagreen,‬ ‭as‬ ‭Dr.‬ ‭Permagreen‬‭is‬‭not‬‭Perma-Green,‬‭nor‬‭is‬‭it‬
‭endorsed, sponsored by, or affiliated with Perma-Green.‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭There‬ ‭has‬ ‭been‬ ‭no‬ ‭issues‬ ‭regarding‬ ‭confusion‬ ‭regarding‬ ‭the‬ ‭goods‬
‭sold‬ ‭by‬ ‭Defendants.‬‭The‬‭Defendants‬‭do‬‭not‬‭claim‬‭to‬‭be‬‭endorsed,‬‭sponsored‬‭by,‬
‭or affiliated with Perma-Green in any way.‬
‭21.‬‭The name “Dr. Permagreen” is highly similar to the Mark.‬
‭ANSWER:‬‭The‬‭name‬‭“Dr.‬‭Permagreen”‬‭has‬‭no‬‭longer‬‭been‬‭in‬‭use‬‭by‬‭Defendants‬
‭since May of 2023, when Plaintiff first requested Defendants to change the name.‬
‭22.‬‭Klott‬ ‭used‬‭his‬‭entity,‬‭FTW‬‭Investments,‬‭to‬‭purchase‬‭Perma-Green‬‭products‬‭that‬
‭he then sold through the Dr. Permagreen entity.‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭Defendant‬‭has‬‭multiple‬‭entities‬‭and‬‭utilized‬‭different‬‭company‬‭credit‬
‭cards‬ ‭to‬ ‭maximize‬ ‭credit‬ ‭card‬ ‭points‬ ‭and‬ ‭did‬ ‭not‬ ‭procure‬ ‭goods‬ ‭from‬ ‭Plaintiff‬
‭with the intent to deceive Plaintiff.‬
‭23.‬‭Upon‬‭information‬‭and‬‭belief,‬‭Klott‬‭directed‬‭FTW‬‭Investments‬‭to‬‭make‬‭purchases‬
‭of‬‭PermaGreen‬‭parts‬‭to‬‭avoid‬‭suspicion‬‭from‬‭Perma-Green,‬‭but‬‭with‬‭the‬‭intent‬‭to‬
‭sell the parts using the Dr. Permagreen entity.‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭Defendant‬‭has‬‭multiple‬‭entities‬‭and‬‭utilized‬‭different‬‭company‬‭credit‬
‭cards‬ ‭to‬ ‭maximize‬ ‭credit‬ ‭card‬ ‭points‬ ‭and‬ ‭did‬ ‭not‬ ‭procure‬ ‭goods‬ ‭from‬ ‭Plaintiff‬
‭with the intent to deceive Plaintiff.‬
‭24.‬‭The Defendants’ actions have led to actual confusion.‬
‭ANSWER: Deny.‬
‭25.‬‭Customers‬ ‭who‬ ‭bought‬ ‭parts‬ ‭from‬ ‭Dr.‬ ‭Permagreen‬ ‭began‬ ‭calling‬ ‭Perma-Green‬
‭believing they had purchased parts directly from Perma-Green.‬
‭6‬
‭26.‬‭Customers‬ ‭have‬ ‭commented‬‭on‬‭Perma-Green’s‬‭Facebook‬‭page‬‭because‬‭they‬‭had‬
‭negative‬ ‭business‬ ‭experiences‬ ‭with‬ ‭Dr.‬ ‭Permagreen‬ ‭and‬ ‭falsely‬ ‭believed‬
‭Defendants were associated with Perma-Green.‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭Plaintiff’s‬ ‭picture‬ ‭attached‬ ‭to‬ ‭its‬ ‭Complaint‬ ‭in‬ ‭paragraph‬ ‭19‬ ‭shows‬
‭100%‬ ‭positive‬ ‭feedback‬ ‭for‬ ‭Ebay‬ ‭user‬ ‭Dr.‬ ‭Permagreen‬ ‭and‬ ‭Defendant‬ ‭requests‬
‭additional‬ ‭proof‬ ‭of‬ ‭customer‬ ‭comments‬‭on‬‭Plaintiff’s‬‭Facebook‬‭page‬‭supporting‬
‭the allegations in this paragraph.‬
‭27.‬‭In‬ ‭addition‬ ‭to‬ ‭actually‬ ‭confusing‬ ‭customers,‬ ‭Defendants’‬ ‭actions‬ ‭caused‬
‭customers‬ ‭to‬ ‭buy‬ ‭parts‬ ‭that‬ ‭are‬ ‭not‬ ‭made‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭high‬ ‭safety‬ ‭specifications‬ ‭of‬
‭Perma-Green.‬
‭28.‬‭As‬‭a‬‭result‬‭of‬‭the‬‭actual‬‭confusion,‬‭Perma-Green’s‬‭reputation‬‭has‬‭been‬‭tarnished‬
‭and‬ ‭Perma-Green‬‭is‬‭unable‬‭to‬‭maintain‬‭the‬‭high‬‭safety‬‭standards‬‭it‬‭holds‬‭for‬‭its‬
‭products.‬
‭29.‬‭Many buyers have had negative experiences with Dr. Permagreen.‬
‭ANSWER: Deny.‬
‭30.‬‭Dr.‬ ‭Permagreen’s‬ ‭e-Bay‬‭page‬‭contains‬‭numerous‬‭negative‬‭reviews.‬‭For‬‭example,‬
‭buyers‬ ‭commented:‬ ‭“Terrible‬ ‭seller!‬ ‭Buyers‬ ‭beware!‬ ‭Item‬ ‭would‬ ‭not‬ ‭turn‬ ‭on.‬
‭Slow‬‭or‬‭no‬‭response;”‬ ‭“I‬‭payed‬‭for‬‭it‬‭and‬‭he‬‭would‬‭never‬‭ship‬‭it‬‭but‬‭gave‬‭me‬‭my‬
‭money‬ ‭back;”‬ ‭“seller‬ ‭changed‬ ‭price‬ ‭after‬ ‭being‬‭paid,‬‭shipping‬‭took‬‭over‬‭a‬‭week,‬
‭missing/broken;”‬‭and‬‭“Did‬‭not‬‭have‬‭lug‬‭nuts‬‭like‬‭it‬‭said‬‭it‬‭did‬‭so‬‭I‬‭had‬‭to‬‭go‬‭buy‬
‭my own for $29.”‬
‭7‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭These‬ ‭comments‬ ‭were‬ ‭not‬ ‭associated‬ ‭with‬ ‭any‬ ‭related‬ ‭Perma-Green‬
‭product‬ ‭sales‬ ‭by‬ ‭Defendants,‬ ‭rather,‬ ‭these‬ ‭were‬ ‭related‬ ‭to‬ ‭other‬ ‭types‬ ‭of‬
‭equipment‬ ‭that‬ ‭are‬ ‭not‬ ‭in‬ ‭any‬ ‭way‬ ‭affiliated‬ ‭with‬ ‭Plaintiff‬ ‭or‬ ‭its‬ ‭products‬ ‭or‬
‭trademark.‬
‭31.‬‭These‬ ‭and‬ ‭other‬ ‭negative‬ ‭experiences‬ ‭of‬ ‭Dr.‬ ‭Permagreen’s‬ ‭customers‬ ‭have‬
‭damaged the goodwill Perma-Green has in the Mark.‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭These‬ ‭alleged‬ ‭negative‬ ‭experiences‬ ‭were‬ ‭not‬ ‭associated‬ ‭or‬ ‭affiliated‬
‭with‬ ‭Plaintiff,‬ ‭as‬‭mentioned‬‭in‬‭the‬‭previous‬‭paragraphs,‬‭and‬‭therefore‬‭could‬‭not‬
‭have damaged any goodwill Perma-Green has in the Mark.‬
‭32.‬‭Defendants‬‭also‬‭marketed‬‭lawn-care‬‭products‬‭on‬‭the‬‭drpermagreen.com‬‭website.‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭are‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭business‬ ‭of‬ ‭selling‬ ‭new‬ ‭and‬ ‭refurbished‬
‭lawn-care‬ ‭products‬ ‭and‬ ‭equipment‬ ‭as‬ ‭well‬ ‭as‬ ‭servicing‬ ‭lawn-care‬ ‭products‬ ‭and‬
‭equipment and advertise their products and services legally on their website.‬
‭33.‬‭Perma-Green‬ ‭sent‬ ‭Cease‬ ‭and‬ ‭Desist‬ ‭letters‬ ‭to‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭demanding‬ ‭that‬
‭Defendants stop infringing Perma-Green’s rights.‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭received‬ ‭the‬ ‭Cease‬ ‭and‬ ‭Desist‬ ‭letters‬ ‭and‬ ‭respectfully‬
‭followed the demands made as reasonably and pragmatically as possible.‬
‭Klott Intentionally Continues Violating Perma-Green’s Intellectual Property‬
‭Rights‬
‭34.‬‭After‬ ‭Perma-Green‬ ‭sent‬ ‭the‬ ‭first‬ ‭Cease‬ ‭and‬ ‭Desist‬ ‭letter,‬ ‭Klott‬ ‭announced‬ ‭his‬
‭intent to continue selling counterfeit goods.‬
‭8‬
‭ANSWER:‬‭Defendant‬‭Mike‬‭Klott‬‭was‬‭not‬‭made‬‭aware‬‭of‬‭Plaintiff’s‬‭claim‬‭that‬‭any‬
‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭goods‬ ‭sold‬ ‭by‬ ‭Defendants‬‭were‬‭counterfeit‬‭upon‬‭receipt‬‭of‬‭the‬‭first‬‭Cease‬
‭and Desist letter.‬
‭35.‬‭On‬‭August‬‭4,‬‭2023,‬‭Klott‬‭sent‬‭Perma-Green‬‭an‬‭e-mail‬‭response‬‭stating‬‭he‬‭would‬
‭use‬ ‭“sources‬ ‭all‬ ‭over‬ ‭China”‬ ‭to‬ ‭copy‬ ‭parts‬ ‭that‬ ‭he‬ ‭could‬ ‭sell‬ ‭by‬ ‭January.‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭Defendant‬ ‭Mike‬ ‭Klott’s‬ ‭statement‬ ‭regarding‬ ‭“sources‬‭all‬‭over‬‭China”‬
‭was‬ ‭only‬ ‭made‬ ‭after‬ ‭Plaintiff‬ ‭had‬ ‭agreed‬ ‭that‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭could‬ ‭purchase‬
‭Plaintiff’s‬ ‭products‬ ‭from‬ ‭a‬ ‭nearby‬ ‭authorized‬ ‭dealer‬ ‭of‬ ‭Perma-Green‬ ‭products,‬
‭however,‬‭Plaintiff‬‭deceitfully‬‭refused‬‭the‬‭shipment‬‭of‬‭said‬‭products‬‭to‬‭the‬‭nearby‬
‭authorized‬ ‭dealer‬ ‭that‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭attempted‬ ‭to‬ ‭procure‬ ‭Plaintiff’s‬ ‭products‬
‭through in an effort to hinder Defendants business.‬
‭36.‬‭In full, the August 4, 2023 e-mail states:‬
‭ANSWER:‬‭There‬‭are‬‭more‬‭communications‬‭than‬‭that‬‭single‬‭email‬‭and‬‭that‬‭single‬
‭email‬ ‭that‬ ‭Defendant‬ ‭sent,‬ ‭taken‬‭out‬‭of‬‭context,‬‭is‬‭a‬‭prejudicial‬‭reflection‬‭of‬‭the‬
‭entire conversation between Plaintiff and Defendants regarding the issue.‬
‭37.‬‭After‬‭he‬‭received‬‭the‬‭first‬‭Cease‬‭and‬‭Desist‬‭letter,‬‭Defendant‬‭began‬‭directing‬‭the‬
‭sale of goods through turfequipmentusa.com.‬
‭ANSWER:‬‭Defendant‬‭changed‬‭the‬‭name‬‭of‬‭his‬‭website‬‭to‬‭respect‬‭the‬‭demands‬‭of‬
‭Plaintiff’s Cease and Desist letter.‬
‭38.‬‭The‬ ‭turfequipmentusa.com‬ ‭website‬ ‭continued‬ ‭to‬ ‭use‬ ‭the‬ ‭Dr.‬‭Permagreen‬‭brand‬
‭to‬‭create‬‭confusion‬‭with‬‭Perma-Green’s‬‭customers.‬‭For‬‭example‬‭at‬‭check‬‭out,‬‭the‬
‭website shows Dr. Permagreen as the identity of the seller:‬
‭ANSWER:‬‭Defendant‬‭mistakenly‬‭believed‬‭that‬‭changing‬‭the‬‭name‬‭of‬‭his‬‭website‬
‭to‬‭respect‬‭the‬‭demands‬‭of‬‭Plaintiff’s‬‭Cease‬‭and‬‭Desist‬‭letter‬‭along‬‭with‬‭changing‬
‭9‬
‭the‬‭heading‬‭banner‬‭of‬‭the‬‭website‬‭would‬‭be‬‭a‬‭sitewide‬‭change‬‭and‬‭did‬‭not‬‭know‬
‭that‬‭the‬‭rest‬‭of‬‭the‬‭website‬‭templates‬‭and‬‭independent‬‭pages‬‭and‬‭context‬‭needed‬
‭to‬‭be‬‭manually‬‭changed‬‭to‬‭reflect‬‭his‬‭intention‬‭of‬‭fully‬‭complying‬‭with‬‭that‬‭aspect‬
‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Plaintiff’s‬ ‭Cease‬ ‭and‬ ‭Desist‬ ‭letter.‬ ‭The‬ ‭“Dr.‬ ‭Permagreen”‬ ‭brand‬ ‭or‬ ‭name‬
‭was‬ ‭not‬ ‭intentionally‬ ‭left‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭website‬ ‭to‬ ‭cause‬ ‭any‬ ‭alleged‬ ‭confusion‬ ‭with‬
‭Perma-Green’s‬ ‭customers,‬ ‭rather,‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭attributable‬ ‭to‬ ‭human‬ ‭error‬ ‭on‬
‭Defendant‬ ‭Mike‬ ‭Klott’s‬ ‭part‬ ‭and‬ ‭this‬ ‭error‬ ‭was‬ ‭corrected‬ ‭by‬ ‭Defendant‬ ‭Mike‬
‭Klott after realizing his mistake.‬
‭39.‬‭The‬ ‭Returns‬ ‭Policy‬ ‭also‬ ‭identified‬ ‭Dr.‬ ‭Permagreen‬ ‭as‬ ‭the‬ ‭entity‬ ‭behind‬ ‭the‬
‭offerings:‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭The‬ ‭Returns‬ ‭Policy‬ ‭has‬ ‭also‬ ‭been‬ ‭changed‬ ‭shortly‬ ‭after‬ ‭Defendant‬
‭Mike Klott realized his mistake as mentioned in the previous paragraph.‬
‭40.‬‭And‬ ‭when‬ ‭a‬ ‭potential‬ ‭customer‬ ‭has‬ ‭questions,‬ ‭they‬ ‭are‬ ‭encouraged‬ ‭to‬‭“Call‬‭the‬
‭Doc for a Refurbished Machine.”‬
‭ANSWER:‬‭The‬‭pop-up‬‭has‬‭also‬‭been‬‭changed‬‭shortly‬‭after‬‭Defendant‬‭Mike‬‭Klott‬
‭realized his mistake as mentioned in the previous paragraph.‬
‭41.‬‭Despite‬ ‭receiving‬ ‭the‬ ‭Cease‬ ‭and‬ ‭Desist‬ ‭letters,‬ ‭Klott‬ ‭continued‬ ‭to‬ ‭create‬
‭counterfeit‬‭copies‬‭of‬‭genuine‬‭Perma-Green‬‭parts‬‭and‬‭offers‬‭them‬‭for‬‭sale‬‭as‬‭if‬‭the‬
‭parts originated with PermaGreen.‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭did‬ ‭not‬ ‭sell‬ ‭any‬ ‭counterfeit‬ ‭items‬ ‭and‬ ‭did‬ ‭not‬ ‭intend‬ ‭to‬
‭deceive any customers into buying counterfeit items.‬
‭42.‬‭For‬‭example,‬‭Defendants‬‭offered‬‭for‬‭sale‬‭a‬‭“Permagreen‬‭Front‬‭Wheel‬‭&‬‭Tire”‬‭for‬
‭$249.99‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭turfequipmentusa.com‬ ‭website.‬ ‭This‬ ‭is‬ ‭not‬ ‭a‬ ‭Permagreen‬ ‭part:‬
‭10‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭no‬ ‭longer‬ ‭offer‬ ‭a‬ ‭product‬ ‭listed‬ ‭as‬ ‭“Permagreen‬ ‭Front‬
‭Wheel & Tire” for sale.‬
‭43.‬‭Further,‬‭the‬‭product‬‭description‬‭for‬‭the‬‭“Permagreen‬‭Front‬‭Wheel‬‭&‬‭Tire”‬‭admits‬
‭“These are not liquid filled.”‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭no‬ ‭longer‬ ‭offer‬ ‭a‬ ‭product‬ ‭listed‬ ‭as‬ ‭“Permagreen‬ ‭Front‬
‭Wheel & Tire” for sale.‬
‭44.‬‭Perma-Green‬ ‭sells‬ ‭only‬ ‭liquid‬ ‭filled‬ ‭tires‬‭because‬‭tires‬‭without‬‭liquid‬‭are‬‭unsafe‬
‭and‬‭render‬‭the‬‭equipment‬‭unstable.‬‭The‬‭substandard‬‭tires‬‭offered‬‭by‬‭Defendants‬
‭create a safety hazard for customers.‬
‭45.‬‭Defendants‬ ‭also‬ ‭falsely‬ ‭marketed‬ ‭a‬ ‭“Permagreen‬ ‭Triumph‬ ‭or‬ ‭Magnum‬ ‭Throttle‬
‭Lever,” which is not a Permagreen part.‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭This‬ ‭part‬ ‭is‬ ‭an‬ ‭authentic‬ ‭Perma-Green‬ ‭product‬ ‭that‬ ‭is‬ ‭listed‬ ‭on‬
‭Defendants’ website for sale.‬
‭46.‬‭The‬ ‭product‬ ‭“Permagreen‬ ‭Magnum‬ ‭Idler‬ ‭Pulley‬ ‭Spinner‬ ‭Gearbox/Pump”‬ ‭is‬
‭another‬‭falsely‬‭marketed‬‭product‬‭from‬‭Defendants‬‭because‬‭it‬‭is‬‭not‬‭a‬‭part‬‭sold‬‭by‬
‭Perma-Green.‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭This‬ ‭part‬ ‭is‬ ‭an‬ ‭authentic‬ ‭Perma-Green‬ ‭product‬ ‭that‬ ‭is‬ ‭listed‬ ‭on‬
‭Defendants’ website for sale.‬
‭47.‬‭Defendants‬ ‭also‬ ‭falsely‬ ‭advertised‬ ‭certain‬ ‭parts‬ ‭as‬ ‭“Permagreen‬ ‭Aftermarket”‬
‭parts;‬ ‭for‬ ‭example,‬ ‭the‬ ‭“Permagreen‬ ‭Aftermarket‬ ‭2:1‬ ‭Wet‬ ‭Clutch”‬ ‭is‬ ‭not‬ ‭a‬
‭Perma-Green part.‬
‭ANSWER:‬‭These‬‭parts‬‭are‬‭no‬‭longer‬‭listed‬‭for‬‭sale‬‭by‬‭Defendants‬‭as‬‭“Permagreen‬
‭Aftermarket” parts.‬
‭11‬
‭48.‬‭These‬ ‭parts‬ ‭may‬ ‭not‬ ‭be‬ ‭manufactured‬ ‭to‬ ‭Perma-Green’s‬ ‭standards.‬ ‭Yet‬
‭consumers‬ ‭are‬ ‭falsely‬ ‭led‬ ‭to‬ ‭believe‬ ‭these‬ ‭are‬ ‭Perma-Green‬ ‭parts‬ ‭tarnishing‬
‭Perma-Green’s reputation.‬
‭ANSWER:‬‭These‬‭parts‬‭are‬‭no‬‭longer‬‭listed‬‭for‬‭sale‬‭by‬‭Defendants‬‭as‬‭“Permagreen‬
‭Aftermarket” parts and could not create alleged confusion to consumers.‬
‭49.‬‭Defendants’‬ ‭continued‬ ‭defiance‬ ‭led‬ ‭Perma-Green‬ ‭to‬ ‭send‬ ‭a‬ ‭second‬ ‭cease‬ ‭and‬
‭desist letter.‬
‭50.‬‭In‬ ‭response‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭second‬ ‭cease‬ ‭and‬ ‭deist‬ ‭letter,‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭modified‬ ‭their‬
‭website‬ ‭to‬ ‭misleadingly‬ ‭associate‬ ‭Perma-Green‬ ‭with‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭by‬ ‭adding‬ ‭a‬
‭banner‬‭that‬‭states‬‭it‬‭is‬‭the‬‭“#1‬‭Source‬‭for‬‭Refurbished‬‭Permagreen‬‭Magnums‬‭and‬
‭Permagreen‬ ‭Triumphs.”‬ ‭This‬‭banner‬‭leads‬‭customers‬‭to‬‭believe‬‭that‬‭Defendants‬
‭are endorsed or affiliated with Perma-Green.‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭The‬ ‭statement‬ ‭Defendant’s‬ ‭website‬ ‭makes‬ ‭is‬ ‭wrongfully‬ ‭alleged‬ ‭by‬
‭Plaintiff‬ ‭to‬ ‭have‬ ‭the‬ ‭effect‬ ‭of‬ ‭leading‬ ‭customers‬ ‭to‬ ‭believe‬ ‭that‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭are‬
‭endorsed‬‭or‬‭affiliated‬‭with‬‭Plaintiff,‬‭however,‬‭the‬‭statement‬‭taken‬‭on‬‭its‬‭face‬‭only‬
‭claims‬‭to‬‭be‬‭a‬‭leading‬‭source‬‭for‬‭refurbished‬‭products‬‭of‬‭Plaintiff,‬‭i.e.,‬‭a‬‭reseller,‬
‭which,‬ ‭in‬ ‭fact,‬ ‭is‬ ‭what‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭have‬ ‭been‬ ‭operating‬ ‭as‬ ‭since‬ ‭their‬ ‭entity‬
‭formation.‬
‭51.‬‭Dr.‬ ‭Permagreen‬ ‭and‬ ‭the‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭also‬ ‭began‬ ‭advertising‬ ‭on‬ ‭YouTube‬ ‭with‬ ‭a‬
‭banner‬ ‭ad‬ ‭falsely‬ ‭suggesting‬ ‭an‬ ‭association‬ ‭between‬ ‭Perma-Green‬ ‭and‬
‭Defendants.‬ ‭The‬ ‭advertisement‬ ‭leads‬ ‭customers‬ ‭to‬ ‭believe‬ ‭that‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭are‬
‭endorsed or affiliated with Perma-Green.‬
‭12‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭never‬ ‭claimed‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭affiliated‬ ‭with‬ ‭Plaintiff‬ ‭company‬
‭directly and request Plaintiff’s proofs of such statements.‬
‭52.‬‭The‬ ‭statements‬ ‭made‬ ‭by‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭parts‬ ‭are‬ ‭“Permagreen”‬ ‭parts‬ ‭are‬
‭literally false.‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭deny‬ ‭this‬ ‭allegation‬ ‭because‬ ‭parts‬ ‭listed‬ ‭on‬ ‭Defendants’‬
‭website‬ ‭are‬ ‭authentic‬ ‭parts‬ ‭from‬ ‭Perma-Green‬ ‭that‬ ‭are‬ ‭simply‬ ‭resold‬ ‭to‬ ‭public‬
‭consumers.‬
‭53.‬‭The‬‭literally‬‭false‬‭statements‬‭appearing‬‭on‬‭the‬‭Defendants’‬‭website‬‭are‬‭placed‬‭to‬
‭maximize‬ ‭their‬ ‭impact,‬ ‭confuse‬ ‭consumers,‬ ‭and‬ ‭affect‬ ‭a‬ ‭consumer’s‬ ‭purchase‬
‭decision.‬
‭ANSWER: Defendants deny this allegation.‬
‭54.‬‭Defendants‬ ‭have‬ ‭knowingly‬ ‭misled‬ ‭customers‬ ‭regarding‬ ‭its‬ ‭association‬ ‭with‬
‭Perma-Green and the nature of the goods it sells.‬
‭The Literally False Listings and Infringement are Willful and Deliberate‬
‭55.‬‭Defendants‬‭are‬‭aware‬‭that‬‭its‬‭listings‬‭are‬‭literally‬‭false,‬‭deceptive,‬‭confusing,‬‭and‬
‭unlawful.‬
‭56.‬‭Defendants‬ ‭have‬ ‭been‬ ‭served‬ ‭with‬ ‭multiple‬ ‭Cease‬ ‭and‬ ‭Desist‬ ‭letters,‬ ‭yet‬
‭Defendants continue their infringing actions.‬
‭57.‬‭For‬ ‭example,‬‭Klott‬‭continued‬‭to‬‭sell‬‭a‬‭“Permagreen‬‭JackShaft‬‭Bearing‬‭Assembly‬
‭for Magnum” on Defendants website:‬
‭13‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭did‬‭not‬‭continue‬‭to‬‭sell‬‭a‬‭“Permagreen‬‭Jackshaft‬‭Bearing‬
‭Assembly‬ ‭for‬ ‭Magnum”‬ ‭on‬ ‭Defendants’‬ ‭website,‬ ‭rather,‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭procured‬ ‭a‬
‭better‬ ‭product‬ ‭and‬ ‭have‬ ‭listed‬ ‭it‬ ‭for‬ ‭sale:‬
‭58.‬‭The‬ ‭part‬ ‭falsely‬ ‭identified‬ ‭above‬ ‭as‬ ‭a‬ ‭Permagreen‬ ‭part‬ ‭differs‬ ‭from‬ ‭a‬ ‭true‬
‭Perma-Green part:‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭The‬ ‭part‬ ‭listed‬ ‭by‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭use‬ ‭a‬ ‭different‬ ‭pulley‬ ‭mechanism‬‭and‬
‭are‬ ‭made‬ ‭with‬ ‭cast-iron‬ ‭components‬ ‭as‬ ‭opposed‬ ‭to‬ ‭Plaintiff’s‬ ‭inferior‬ ‭plastic‬
‭components‬ ‭which‬ ‭suffer‬ ‭more‬ ‭significant‬ ‭wear-and-tear,‬ ‭causing‬‭consumers‬‭to‬
‭have‬ ‭to‬ ‭replace‬ ‭or‬ ‭repair‬ ‭the‬ ‭part‬ ‭more‬ ‭often.‬ ‭Defendants’‬ ‭actions‬ ‭of‬ ‭offering‬
‭consumers‬ ‭a‬ ‭more‬ ‭superior‬ ‭product‬ ‭to‬ ‭fit‬ ‭Plaintiff’s‬ ‭equipment‬ ‭will‬ ‭ultimately‬
‭help‬‭Plaintiff’s‬‭equipment‬‭reputation‬‭and‬‭goodwill‬‭because‬‭of‬‭increased‬‭longevity‬
‭provided by Defendants’ upgraded replacement part of Plaintiff’s equipment.‬
‭59.‬‭As‬ ‭shown,‬ ‭however,‬ ‭the‬ ‭Defendants’‬ ‭counterfeit‬ ‭part‬ ‭appears‬ ‭to‬ ‭use‬ ‭a‬ ‭cast‬ ‭iron‬
‭pillow‬‭block,‬‭whereas‬‭a‬‭genuine‬‭Perma-Green‬‭part‬‭would‬‭use‬‭a‬‭plastic‬‭composite‬
‭14‬
‭pillow‬ ‭block.‬ ‭Further,‬ ‭the‬ ‭large‬ ‭pulley‬ ‭shown‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭jackshaft‬ ‭is‬ ‭not‬ ‭a‬
‭Perma-Green part.‬
‭ANSWER:‬‭Defendants’‬‭answer‬‭in‬‭Paragraph‬‭58‬‭explains‬‭the‬‭superiority‬‭between‬
‭these different parts.‬
‭60.‬‭Defendants‬‭know‬‭these‬‭parts‬‭are‬‭not‬‭Perma-Green‬‭parts‬‭and‬‭yet‬‭market‬‭them‬‭as‬
‭PermaGreen parts.‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭did‬ ‭not‬ ‭market‬ ‭these‬ ‭products‬ ‭as‬ ‭genuine‬ ‭or‬ ‭original‬
‭Perma-Green parts and did not mislead, confuse, or deceive its customers.‬
‭61.‬‭Despite‬‭knowing‬‭that‬‭the‬‭parts‬‭are‬‭not‬‭Perma-Green‬‭parts,‬‭and‬‭despite‬‭receipt‬‭of‬
‭the‬ ‭Cease‬ ‭and‬ ‭Desist‬ ‭letters,‬ ‭Defendants‬‭continue‬‭to‬‭falsely‬‭market‬‭and‬‭mislead‬
‭customers about the nature of the goods they sell.‬
‭62.‬‭Klott‬ ‭controls‬ ‭both‬ ‭Dr.‬‭Permagreen‬‭and‬‭FTW‬‭Investments,‬‭and‬‭has‬‭caused‬‭both‬
‭Dr.‬ ‭Permagreen‬ ‭and‬ ‭FTW‬ ‭Investments‬ ‭to‬ ‭infringe‬ ‭Perma-Green’s‬ ‭rights‬ ‭and,‬
‭despite‬ ‭personally‬ ‭knowing‬ ‭that‬ ‭certain‬ ‭parts‬ ‭are‬ ‭not‬ ‭Perma-Green‬ ‭parts,‬ ‭has‬
‭personally‬ ‭caused‬ ‭the‬ ‭parts‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭listed‬ ‭as‬ ‭if‬ ‭they‬ ‭were‬ ‭“Permagreen”‬ ‭parts.‬
‭followed‬‭the‬‭demands‬‭made‬‭as‬‭reasonably‬‭and‬‭pragmatically‬‭as‬‭possible‬‭and‬‭did‬
‭not‬ ‭list‬ ‭the‬‭parts‬‭as‬‭genuine‬‭or‬‭original‬‭Perma-Green‬‭parts‬‭and‬‭did‬‭not‬‭mislead,‬
‭confuse, or deceive its customers.‬
‭COUNT I‬
‭ rademark Infringement‬
T
‭ gainst All Defendants under 15 USC § 1114‬
A
‭15‬
‭63.‬‭Perma-Green‬ ‭repeats‬ ‭and‬ ‭realleges‬ ‭the‬ ‭allegations‬ ‭contained‬ ‭in‬ ‭Paragraphs‬ ‭1‬
‭through 62 as though fully set forth herein.‬
‭64.‬ ‭Perma-Green‬ ‭has‬ ‭a‬‭protectable‬‭interest‬‭in‬‭the‬‭Mark,‬‭registered‬‭with‬‭the‬‭United‬
‭States Patent and Trademark Office.‬
‭65.‬‭Without‬‭the‬‭consent‬‭of‬‭Perma-Green,‬‭Defendants‬‭have‬‭used‬‭and‬‭continue‬‭to‬‭use‬
‭the‬‭Mark‬‭in‬‭commerce‬‭in‬‭connection‬‭with‬‭the‬‭sale,‬‭offering‬‭for‬‭sale,‬‭distribution‬
‭or‬ ‭advertising‬ ‭of‬ ‭goods‬ ‭or‬ ‭services‬ ‭and‬ ‭the‬ ‭unauthorized‬ ‭use‬ ‭is‬ ‭likely‬ ‭to‬ ‭cause‬
‭confusion,‬ ‭or‬ ‭to‬ ‭cause‬ ‭mistake,‬ ‭or‬ ‭is‬ ‭likely‬ ‭to‬ ‭deceive‬ ‭in‬ ‭violation‬ ‭of‬ ‭15‬ ‭U.S.C.‬
‭§1114(1)(a).‬
‭ANSWER:‬‭Deny‬‭because‬‭Plaintiff‬‭cannot‬‭claim‬‭that‬‭parts‬‭manufactured‬‭by‬‭other‬
‭companies are only exclusively for use with Plaintiff’s equipment for sale.‬
‭66.‬‭Indeed,‬ ‭the‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭offer‬ ‭products‬‭and‬‭use‬‭a‬‭business‬‭name‬‭nearly‬‭identical‬
‭to the Mark.‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭use‬ ‭“Turf‬ ‭Equipment‬ ‭USA”‬ ‭as‬ ‭their‬ ‭business‬ ‭name‬ ‭or‬
‭DBA.‬
‭67.‬‭Defendants‬ ‭have‬ ‭offered‬ ‭products‬ ‭using‬ ‭the‬ ‭Mark‬ ‭as‬ ‭a‬ ‭trade‬ ‭name‬ ‭that‬ ‭are‬ ‭not‬
‭Perma-Green parts.‬
‭ANSWER: Defendants deny offering products using Plaintiff’s Mark.‬
‭68.‬‭The Mark is federally registered.‬
‭69.‬‭Defendants have not been authorized to use the Mark.‬
‭16‬
‭70.‬‭Both‬‭Defendants‬‭and‬‭Perma-Green‬‭use‬‭the‬‭similar‬‭marks‬‭for‬‭the‬‭sale‬‭of‬‭lawn‬‭care‬
‭equipment to commercial entities.‬
‭ANSWER:‬‭Defendants‬‭can‬‭offer‬‭products‬‭for‬‭sale‬‭and‬‭resale‬‭under‬‭the‬‭First‬‭Sale‬
‭Doctrine‬ ‭per‬ ‭15‬ ‭USC‬ ‭§‬ ‭1114(1)(a).‬ ‭This‬ ‭is‬ ‭neither‬ ‭trademark‬ ‭infringement‬ ‭nor‬
‭unfair competition.‬
‭71.‬‭These efforts by Defendants have led to actual confusion by consumers.‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭have‬ ‭not‬ ‭contributed‬ ‭to‬ ‭any‬ ‭alleged‬ ‭actual‬ ‭confusion‬ ‭by‬
‭consumers.‬
‭72.‬‭Defendants‬ ‭have‬ ‭created‬ ‭parts‬ ‭that‬ ‭are‬ ‭not‬ ‭Perma-Green‬ ‭parts‬ ‭and‬ ‭yet‬
‭purposefully palm off such parts as if they are genuine Perma-Green parts.‬
‭73.‬‭Defendants’‬ ‭unauthorized‬ ‭use‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Mark‬ ‭constitutes‬‭use‬‭of‬‭a‬‭counterfeit‬‭mark‬
‭as described in 15 U.S.C. §1116(d)(1)(B).‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭Defendants’‬ ‭actions‬ ‭do‬ ‭not‬ ‭constitute‬ ‭use‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭counterfeit‬ ‭mark‬ ‭in‬
‭violation‬ ‭of‬ ‭15‬ ‭U.S.C.‬ ‭§1116(d)(1)(B).‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭actions‬‭fall‬‭within‬‭the‬‭scope‬‭of‬
‭the First Sale Doctrine per 15 USC § 1114(1)(a).‬
‭74.‬‭Defendants‬‭have‬‭intentionally,‬‭willfully,‬‭and‬‭knowingly‬‭used‬‭the‬‭counterfeit‬‭mark‬
‭in‬‭a‬‭malicious,‬‭fraudulent‬‭manner‬‭in‬‭connection‬‭with‬‭the‬‭sale,‬‭offering‬‭for‬‭sale,‬‭or‬
‭distribution of goods or services.‬
‭75.‬‭Defendants’‬‭conduct‬‭is‬‭causing‬‭irreparable‬‭harm‬‭and‬‭injury‬‭to‬‭Perma-Green‬‭and‬
‭its‬ ‭goodwill‬‭and‬‭reputation,‬‭and‬‭will‬‭continue‬‭to‬‭both‬‭damage‬‭Perma-Green‬‭and‬
‭confuse‬‭the‬‭public‬‭unless‬‭enjoined‬‭by‬‭this‬‭Court.‬ ‭Perma-Green‬‭has‬‭no‬‭adequate‬
‭remedy at law.‬
‭17‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭deny‬ ‭this‬ ‭allegation‬ ‭and‬ ‭no‬ ‭harm‬ ‭has‬ ‭been‬ ‭done‬ ‭to‬
‭Perma-Green’s reputation and goodwill.‬
‭76.‬‭Perma-Green‬ ‭is‬ ‭entitled‬ ‭to‬ ‭injunctive‬ ‭relief,‬ ‭an‬ ‭award‬ ‭of‬ ‭actual‬ ‭or‬ ‭statutory‬
‭damages,‬ ‭and‬ ‭treble‬ ‭damages‬ ‭under‬ ‭Sections‬ ‭34‬ ‭and‬ ‭35‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Lanham‬ ‭Act,‬ ‭15‬
‭U.S.C. §§ 1116, 1117.‬
‭ANSWER: Defendants deny responsibility and liability.‬
‭COUNT II‬
‭False Designation of Origin‬
‭Against All Defendants Under 15 USC § 1125(a)‬
‭77.‬‭False Designation of Origin Against All Defendants Under 15 USC § 1125(a)‬
‭78.‬‭Defendants‬ ‭make‬ ‭false‬ ‭representations‬ ‭concerning‬ ‭the‬ ‭origin,‬ ‭association,‬ ‭or‬
‭endorsement‬ ‭of‬ ‭their‬ ‭goods‬ ‭or‬ ‭services‬ ‭through‬ ‭the‬ ‭wrongful‬ ‭use‬ ‭of‬
‭Perma-Green’s distinctive mark or name.‬
‭79.‬‭Defendants’‬‭acts‬‭are‬‭likely‬‭to‬‭deceive‬‭or‬‭confuse‬‭consumers,‬‭and‬‭have‬‭deceived‬‭or‬
‭confused‬‭consumers,‬‭as‬‭to‬‭the‬‭origin,‬‭association,‬‭or‬‭endorsement‬‭of‬‭Defendants’‬
‭goods‬‭and‬‭services,‬‭and‬‭are‬‭likely‬‭to‬‭cause‬‭and‬‭have‬‭caused‬‭consumers‬‭to‬‭believe,‬
‭contrary‬ ‭to‬ ‭fact,‬ ‭that‬ ‭Defendants’‬ ‭goods‬ ‭and‬ ‭services‬ ‭are‬ ‭sold‬ ‭or‬ ‭offered,‬
‭authorized,‬ ‭endorsed,‬ ‭or‬ ‭sponsored‬ ‭by‬ ‭PermaGreen,‬ ‭or‬ ‭that‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭are‬ ‭in‬
‭some way affiliated with or sponsored by Perma-Green.‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭do‬ ‭not‬ ‭and‬ ‭did‬ ‭not‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭past‬ ‭claim‬ ‭any‬ ‭direct‬
‭endorsement, sponsorship, affiliation, or approval by Plaintiff.‬
‭18‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭No‬ ‭harm‬ ‭has‬ ‭been‬ ‭done‬ ‭to‬ ‭Perma-Green’s‬ ‭reputation‬ ‭and‬ ‭goodwill‬
‭and‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭have‬ ‭not‬ ‭contributed‬ ‭to‬ ‭any‬ ‭alleged‬ ‭actual‬ ‭confusion‬ ‭by‬
‭consumers.‬
‭82.‬ ‭Perma-Green‬ ‭is‬ ‭entitled‬ ‭to‬ ‭injunctive‬ ‭relief,‬ ‭an‬ ‭award‬ ‭of‬ ‭actual‬ ‭or‬ ‭statutory‬
‭damages,‬ ‭and‬ ‭treble‬ ‭damages‬ ‭under‬ ‭Sections‬ ‭34‬ ‭and‬ ‭35‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Lanham‬ ‭Act,‬ ‭15‬
‭U.S.C. §§ 1116, 1117.‬
‭COUNT III‬
‭ alse Advertising‬
F
‭ gainst All Defendants Under 15 USC § 1125(a)‬
A
‭19‬
‭83.‬‭Defendants‬ ‭have‬ ‭made‬ ‭false‬ ‭statements‬ ‭of‬ ‭fact‬ ‭in‬ ‭their‬ ‭advertising‬ ‭about‬
‭Perma-Green’s products.‬
‭86.‬‭Defendants’‬‭deception‬‭is‬‭material‬‭and‬‭is‬‭likely‬‭to‬‭affect‬‭the‬‭purchasing‬‭decision‬‭of‬
‭consumers of commercial lawn equipment.‬
‭87.‬‭Perma-Green‬ ‭has‬ ‭been‬ ‭injured‬ ‭as‬ ‭a‬ ‭result‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭false‬ ‭statement‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭direct‬
‭diversion of sales and by the loss of goodwill associated with its products.‬
‭88.‬‭Perma-Green‬ ‭has‬ ‭been‬ ‭injured‬ ‭as‬ ‭a‬ ‭result‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭false‬ ‭statement‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭direct‬
‭diversion of sales and by the loss of goodwill associated with its products.‬
‭COUNT IV‬
‭Deceptive Consumer Sales‬
‭Against All Defendants Under Ind. Code § 24-5-0.5-4‬
‭89.‬‭Perma-Green‬ ‭repeats‬ ‭and‬ ‭realleges‬ ‭the‬ ‭allegations‬ ‭contained‬ ‭in‬ ‭Paragraphs‬ ‭1‬
‭through 88 as though fully set forth herein.‬
‭20‬
‭90.‬‭Defendants‬‭made‬‭deceptive‬‭representations‬‭as‬‭to‬‭the‬‭subject‬‭matter‬‭of‬‭consumer‬
‭transactions,‬ ‭including‬ ‭misrepresenting‬ ‭the‬ ‭source‬ ‭or‬ ‭origin‬ ‭of‬ ‭certain‬ ‭goods‬
‭offered for sale by Defendants.‬
‭91.‬‭Defendants‬‭made‬‭deceptive‬‭representations‬‭as‬‭to‬‭the‬‭subject‬‭matter‬‭of‬‭consumer‬
‭transactions,‬ ‭including‬ ‭falsely‬ ‭representing‬ ‭a‬ ‭sponsorship‬ ‭or‬ ‭approval‬ ‭of‬
‭Defendants’ actions by Perma-Green.‬
‭92.‬‭Defendants’‬ ‭actions‬ ‭harmed‬ ‭Perma-Green‬ ‭and‬ ‭tarnished‬ ‭Perma-Green’s‬
‭reputation.‬
‭consumers.‬
‭93.‬‭Defendants’ deceptive representations were willful.‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭have‬ ‭not‬ ‭made‬ ‭deceptive‬ ‭representations,‬ ‭therefore,‬ ‭no‬
‭intent can be inferred due to the lack of causation.‬
‭COUNT V‬
‭ nfair Competition‬
U
‭Against All Defendants‬
‭94.‬‭Perma-Green‬ ‭hereby‬ ‭restates‬ ‭and‬ ‭realleges‬ ‭Paragraphs‬ ‭1‬ ‭through‬ ‭93‬ ‭of‬ ‭this‬
‭Complaint as though set forth herein.‬
‭21‬
‭95.‬‭Defendants‬ ‭make‬ ‭false‬ ‭representations‬ ‭concerning‬ ‭the‬ ‭origin,‬ ‭association,‬ ‭or‬
‭endorsement‬ ‭of‬ ‭their‬ ‭goods‬ ‭or‬ ‭services‬ ‭through‬ ‭the‬ ‭wrongful‬ ‭use‬ ‭of‬
‭Perma-Green’s name.‬
‭97.‬‭Defendants‬ ‭have‬ ‭intentionally,‬ ‭willfully,‬ ‭and‬ ‭knowingly‬ ‭used‬ ‭the‬ ‭false‬
‭representations‬ ‭in‬ ‭a‬ ‭malicious,‬ ‭fraudulent‬ ‭manner‬ ‭in‬ ‭connection‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭sale,‬
‭offering for sale, or distribution of goods or services.‬
‭ANSWER:‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭have‬ ‭not‬ ‭made‬ ‭deceptive‬ ‭representations,‬ ‭therefore,‬ ‭no‬
‭intent can be inferred due to the lack of causation.‬
‭98.‬‭Defendants’‬ ‭conduct‬ ‭causes‬ ‭irreparable‬‭harm‬‭and‬‭injury‬‭to‬‭Perma-Green‬‭and‬‭to‬
‭its‬ ‭goodwill‬ ‭and‬ ‭reputation‬ ‭and‬ ‭will‬‭continue‬‭to‬‭both‬‭damage‬‭Perma-Green‬‭and‬
‭confuse‬ ‭the‬ ‭public‬ ‭unless‬ ‭enjoined‬ ‭by‬ ‭this‬ ‭court.‬ ‭Perma-Green‬‭has‬‭no‬‭adequate‬
‭remedy at law.‬
‭consumers.‬
‭22‬
‭RELIEF REQUESTED‬
‭WHEREFORE,‬ ‭the‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭hereby‬ ‭respectfully‬ ‭request‬ ‭that‬ ‭this‬ ‭Honorable‬
‭Court‬ ‭deny‬ ‭all‬ ‭of‬ ‭Plaintiff’s‬‭claims‬‭for‬‭relief‬‭and‬‭dismiss‬‭each‬‭claim‬‭with‬‭prejudice‬‭and‬
‭award‬‭attorney‬‭fees‬‭to‬‭Defendants‬‭to‬‭the‬‭fullest‬‭extent‬‭of‬‭law‬‭and‬‭award‬‭any‬‭such‬‭other‬
‭relief this Honorable Court deems just and proper.‬
‭Respectfully submitted,‬
‭ randon Kizy‬
B
‭Attorney for Defendants‬
‭Dated: December 8, 2023‬
‭(Certificate of Service)‬
I‭ , Brandon Kizy, attorney for the Defendant, certify that on December 8, 2023, I‬
‭caused a copy of this pleading to be served upon all parties via e-filing.‬
‭23‬

Dr. Permagreen Answer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dr. Permagreen Answer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USDC IN/ND case 2:23-cv-00341-PPS-JEM document 25 filed 12/08/23 page 1 of 23

I‭ N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT‬

‭ erma-Green Supreme, Inc., an Indiana‬

‭ ichael Edward Klott, an individual;‬

‭ wanson, Martin & Bell, LLP‬

‭DEFENDANT’S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT‬

‭Permagreen‬ ‭and‬ ‭FTW‬ ‭Investments‬ ‭are‬ ‭collectively‬ ‭referred‬‭to‬‭as‬‭“Defendants,”‬‭and‬‭by‬

‭Advertising‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ ‭43(a)‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Lanham‬‭Act,‬‭15‬‭U.S.C.‬‭§1125.‬‭This‬‭action‬

‭with‬ ‭Perma-Green‬ ‭by‬‭trading‬‭upon‬‭Perma-Green’s‬‭goodwill‬‭and‬‭reputation,‬‭and‬

‭infringing‬ ‭upon‬ ‭PermaGreen’s‬ ‭trademarks‬ ‭and‬ ‭intellectual‬ ‭property‬ ‭to‬ ‭create‬

‭ANSWER: Defendants deny this allegation because it is false.‬

‭3.‬ ‭Unless‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭are‬ ‭permanently‬ ‭enjoined‬ ‭from‬ ‭infringing‬ ‭Perma-Green’s‬

‭tarnishing‬ ‭Perma-Green’s‬ ‭reputation,‬ ‭Perma-Green‬ ‭will‬ ‭continue‬ ‭to‬ ‭suffer‬

‭substantial ongoing and irreparable harm.‬

‭ANSWER:‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭deny‬ ‭substantial‬ ‭ongoing‬ ‭and‬ ‭irreparable‬ ‭harm‬ ‭because‬

‭was‬ ‭founded‬ ‭in‬ ‭1973‬ ‭and‬ ‭provides‬ ‭lawncare‬‭equipment‬‭to‬‭discerning‬‭customers‬

‭nationwide.‬ ‭PermaGreen‬ ‭invented‬ ‭and‬ ‭patented‬ ‭the‬ ‭first‬ ‭dual-injection‬ ‭spray‬

‭gun,‬ ‭the‬ ‭first‬ ‭mechanized‬ ‭walk-behind‬‭spreader‬‭sprayer,‬‭and‬‭the‬‭industry’s‬‭first‬

‭and design of its high quality products.‬

‭Klott is the Registered Agent.‬

‭Klott is the Registered Agent.‬

‭JURISDICTION AND VENUE‬

‭thus the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.‬

‭9.‬ ‭Personal‬ ‭jurisdiction‬ ‭exists‬ ‭over‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭because‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭transact‬

‭ANSWER:‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭transacted‬ ‭business‬‭in‬‭this‬‭District,‬‭however,‬‭Defendants‬

‭deny any deceptive practices or purchases regarding Plaintiff.‬

‭10.‬ ‭Venue‬ ‭is‬ ‭proper‬‭pursuant‬‭to‬‭28‬‭U.S.C.‬‭§1391‬‭because‬‭this‬‭cause‬‭of‬‭action‬‭arises‬

‭out of events occurring in part or in full in this District.‬

‭Perma-Green’s Intellectual Property‬

‭12.‬‭Perma-Green‬ ‭holds‬ ‭the‬ ‭standard‬ ‭character‬ ‭trademark‬ ‭for‬ ‭PERMAGREEN,‬‭Reg.‬

‭Perma-Green continues to use its mark throughout the United States.‬

‭first registered on March 17, 2009.‬

‭represents‬ ‭the‬ ‭fifty‬ ‭years‬ ‭of‬ ‭innovation‬ ‭and‬ ‭care‬ ‭that‬‭Perma-Green‬‭has‬‭put‬‭into‬

‭Companies‬ ‭designated‬ ‭as‬ ‭authorized‬ ‭resellers‬ ‭derive‬ ‭considerable‬ ‭value‬‭in‬‭their‬

‭authorized resellers to use the Mark.‬

‭17.‬‭The‬ ‭Perma-Green‬ ‭name‬ ‭and‬ ‭Mark‬ ‭provide‬ ‭Perma-Green‬ ‭with‬ ‭considerable‬

‭“Dr. Permagreen” Infringes Perma-Green’s Mark‬

‭Perma-Green’s products and use and exploit Perma-Green’s goodwill.‬

‭ANSWER:‬ ‭Defendants‬ ‭offer‬ ‭and‬ ‭sell‬ ‭equipment‬‭compatible‬‭with‬‭Perma-Green’s‬

‭GM‬ ‭vehicles–and‬ ‭do‬‭not‬‭exploit‬‭Perma-Green’s‬‭goodwill.‬‭Defendants‬‭purchased‬

‭however,‬ ‭of‬ ‭those‬ ‭1,400‬ ‭products‬ ‭sold,‬‭only‬‭approximately‬‭50‬‭of‬‭those‬‭products‬

‭were related Perma-Green products.‬

‭goods‬ ‭sold‬ ‭by‬ ‭Dr.‬ ‭Permagreen,‬ ‭as‬ ‭Dr.‬ ‭Permagreen‬‭is‬‭not‬‭Perma-Green,‬‭nor‬‭is‬‭it‬

‭endorsed, sponsored by, or affiliated with Perma-Green.‬

‭sold‬ ‭by‬ ‭Defendants.‬‭The‬‭Defendants‬‭do‬‭not‬‭claim‬‭to‬‭be‬‭endorsed,‬‭sponsored‬‭by,‬

‭or affiliated with Perma-Green in any way.‬

‭21.‬‭The name “Dr. Permagreen” is highly similar to the Mark.‬

‭he then sold through the Dr. Permagreen entity.‬

‭with the intent to deceive Plaintiff.‬

‭sell the parts using the Dr. Permagreen entity.‬

‭with the intent to deceive Plaintiff.‬

‭24.‬‭The Defendants’ actions have led to actual confusion.‬

‭believing they had purchased parts directly from Perma-Green.‬

‭26.‬‭Customers‬ ‭have‬ ‭commented‬‭on‬‭Perma-Green’s‬‭Facebook‬‭page‬‭because‬‭they‬‭had‬

‭negative‬ ‭business‬ ‭experiences‬ ‭with‬ ‭Dr.‬ ‭Permagreen‬ ‭and‬ ‭falsely‬ ‭believed‬

‭Defendants were associated with Perma-Green.‬

‭additional‬ ‭proof‬ ‭of‬ ‭customer‬ ‭comments‬‭on‬‭Plaintiff’s‬‭Facebook‬‭page‬‭supporting‬

‭the allegations in this paragraph.‬

‭27.‬‭In‬ ‭addition‬ ‭to‬ ‭actually‬ ‭confusing‬ ‭customers,‬ ‭Defendants’‬ ‭actions‬ ‭caused‬

‭29.‬‭Many buyers have had negative experiences with Dr. Permagreen.‬

‭30.‬‭Dr.‬ ‭Permagreen’s‬ ‭e-Bay‬‭page‬‭contains‬‭numerous‬‭negative‬‭reviews.‬‭For‬‭example,‬

‭money‬ ‭back;”‬ ‭“seller‬ ‭changed‬ ‭price‬ ‭after‬ ‭being‬‭paid,‬‭shipping‬‭took‬‭over‬‭a‬‭week,‬

‭my own for $29.”‬

‭damaged the goodwill Perma-Green has in the Mark.‬