|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN
DIVISION
| THE TAUBMAN COMPANY LIMITED |
| PARTNERSHIP, |
| |
| Plaintiff, | |
| |
| | Civil Action No. 01-72987 |
| v. |
| | Honorable Lawrence P. Zatkoff |
| WEBFEATS and HENRY MISHKOFF, |
 |
Magistrate Judge Komives |
| |
| Defendants. | |
DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF'S EXPEDITED MOTION TO
AMEND PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Defendants hereby request that this action be transferred to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas which is located in Dallas, Texas, Defendants' city of residence.
Plaintiff's Expedited Motion To Amend Preliminary Injunction is filled with distortions,
half-truths, misleading and inaccurate information, irrelevancies, and technical errors. The motion
has so little chance of succeeding on its merits that it was clearly submitted as part of
Plaintiff's continuing campaign to harass Defendants, rather than to litigate its case.
Additionally, Plaintiff's Proposed Modified Order is so confusing that it would be difficult for
Defendants to interpret should it be issued by the Court.
The major problems with Plaintiff's motion include the following:
Much of Plaintiff's argument is based on the contention that Defendants are "proven
infringers," which they are not.
Plaintiff claims that Defendants disparaged the Court's authority by publishing additional
websites after being enjoined by the Court, which is untrue.
Plaintiff claims trademark rights in several domains and websites for which it has introduced
no evidence that such trademark rights exist.
Plaintiff accuses Defendants of defamation and of violation of confidentiality, which is not
only false but which is totally irrelevant to these proceedings.
Plaintiff characterizes Defendants' websites and domain names as "continu[ing] business with
a slight change in mark" after being enjoined by the Court, but Plaintiff is well aware that, in the
only related case to date that has been decided under the Lanham Act, the Court unequivocally
rejected the idea that attaching "sucks.com" to a trademark could possibly be considered to be a
minor change.
Although the possibility of confusion is an essential element of trademark infringement,
Plaintiff offers no evidence of the possibility of such confusion. That is because there is no
possibility of such confusion.
Plaintiff's mark is suffering no harm whatsoever from the websites and domain names that are the
subject of Plaintiff's motion. However, Defendants will clearly suffer grievous and irreparable harm
if the Court grants Plaintiff's motion. Defendants are using the referenced domain names and
websites to exercise their right of free expression and as an integral component of Defendants'
strategy to defend themselves from Plaintiff's onslaught. Depriving Defendants of these domain names
and websites would seriously impede Defendants' ability to defend themselves. This, rather than any
valid trademark issue, is the very reason that Plaintiff seeks the amended injunction.
For these reasons, for which elaboration will be provided in the following brief, Defendants
respectfully request that the Court reject Plaintiff's motion.
Respectfully submitted,
Henry Mishkoff
WebFeats
2661 Midway Road, #224-225
Carrollton, TX 75006
972.931.5421
Defendants
Dated: October 25, 2001
|
