UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
1. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FORENSIC COUNSELORS, INC., a Nevada Non-Profit Corporation, and 2. AMERICAN ACADEMY OF CERTIFIED FORENSIC COUNSELORS, INC., d/b/a AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CERTIFIED FORENSIC COUNSELORS, a Nevada For-Profit Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. 1. NARCONON INTERNATIONAL, a California Non-Profit Corporation, et al. Defendants. )))))))))))))))))) Case No. 14-cv-00187-RAW
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE AND INCORPORATED BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS PITA GROUP, INC., GARY SMITH, DERRY HALLMARK, JANET WATKINS, TOM WIDMANN, VICKI SMITH, MICHAEL OTTO, MICHAEL J. GOSSELIN, KATHY GOSSELIN, MICHAEL GEORGE, DENA G. GOAD, AND MICHAEL ST. AMAND’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Respectfully submitted,
K
EESLING
L
AW
G
ROUP
,
PLLC
s/ David R. Keesling
David R. Keesling, OBA # 17881 Heidi L. Shadid, OBA # 22897 Sloane Ryan Lile, OBA # 21342 401 S. Boston Ave. Mid-Continent Tower, Suite 450 Tulsa, OK 74103 (918) 924-5101 Phone (918) 512-4888 Fax David@KLGattorneys.com Heidi@KLGattorneys.com Sloane@KLGattorneys.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 326 Filed in ED/OK on 09/02/14 Page 1 of 21
Page 2 of 21
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………………. 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………... 3 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………… 4 STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS ALLEGED …………………………………… 5 ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………… 7 I. STANDARD FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER 12(B)(6)………………. 7 II. PLAINTIFFS HAVE STATED A CLAIM FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AGAINST THE MOVING DEFENDANTS………………… 8 a. Plaintiffs’ Claims of Infringement under Counts I-III apply to the Moving Defendants based on Contributory Liability…………………….. 8 b. Plaintiffs Sufficiently Allege a Claim for Infringement of Plaintiffs’ Unregistered Certifications……………………………………………….. 9 i. Plaintiffs’ Certifications are Distinct with Secondary Meaning….. 9 ii. Plaintiffs’ Certifications are Protected under Common Law …….. 12 III. PLAINTIFFS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE A CLAIM FOR FALSE ADVERTISING…………………………………………………………………... 13 IV. PLAINTIFFS CONCEDE THE RIGHT OF PUBLICITY CLAIM……………… 15 V. PLAINTIFFS HAVE STATED A CLAIM FOR CIVIL CONSPIRACY………... 15 VI. ALTERNATIVE REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND……………………….. 18 CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………… 19
6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 326 Filed in ED/OK on 09/02/14 Page 2 of 21
Page 3 of 21
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Lens.com, Inc.
, 722 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2013)……………...
9
Abercrombie v. City of Catoosa
, 896 F.2d 1280 (10th Cir. 1990)……………………. 16
Adickes v. S.H. Kress and Co.
, 398 U.S. 144, 90 S.Ct. 1948 (1970)…………………. 17
Armstrong Paint & Varnish Works v. NuEnamel Corp.
, 305 U.S. 315, 59 S.Ct. 191 (1938)……………………………………………. 12
Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1973 (2009)………………………………
11,
Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly
, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)……………….. 8, 15, 16
Brever v. Rockwell Intern. Corp.
, 40 F.3d 1119 (10th Cir. 1994)……………………. 15, 16, 17
Cardtoons v. Major League Baseball Players Ass’n,
868 F.Supp. 1266 (N.D.Okla. 1994)…………………………………………..
15
Christensen v. Park City Mun. Corp.,
554 F.3d 1271, 1276 (10th Cir. 2009)………... 7
Cottrell, Ltd. v. Biotrol Int’l, Inc.
, 191 F.3d 1248 (10th Cir. 1999)…………………... 8
Donchez v. Coors Brewing Co.
, 392 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2004)…………………….. 11, 13
Foman v. Davis
, 371 U.S. 178, 83 S. Ct. 227 (1962)………………………………… 18
Hall v. Bellmon,
935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir.1991)……………………………………... 7, 8, 9
Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.
, 456 U.S. 844, 102 S.Ct. 2182 (1982)…………………………………………. 9
Lexmark Intern., Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.
, 134 S.Ct. 1377, 188 L.Ed.2d 392 (2014)……………………………………... 13, 14
Lone Star Industries, Inc. v. Horman Family Trust
, 960 F.2d 917 (10th Cir. 1992)………………………………………………… 8
Ridge at Red Hawk, L.L.C. v. Schneider
, 493 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 2007)…………… 8
Robbins v. Wilkie
, 300 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2002)…………………………………... 8
Shero v. City of Grove, Okla.
, 510 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2007)………………………. 8
Smith v. U.S.,
561 F.3d 1090 (10th Cir. 2009)………………………………………... 7, 15
The Bradbury Co., Inc. v. Tessier-duCros
, 387 F.Supp.2d 1167 (D.Kan. 2005)…….. 13
Utah Lighthouse Ministry v. Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research
, 527 F.3d 1045 (10th Cir. 2009)………………………………………………. 9
Statutes & Rules
15 U.S.C. § 1114 9 15 U.S.C. § 1125 9, 13 12 O. S. § 2 13 F
ED
.R.C
IV
.P. 8 7, 10, 13 F
ED
.R.C
IV
.P. Rule 12 4, 7, 8 F
ED
.R.C
IV
.P. Rule 15 18
Treatises
5 C. Wright & A. Miller,
Federal Practice & Procedure
, § 1233
15
6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 326 Filed in ED/OK on 09/02/14 Page 3 of 21
