Taubman Sucks!

TaubmanSucks.com
WillowBendSucks.com
WillowBendMallSucks.com
ShopsAtWillowBendSucks.com
TheShopsAtWillowBendSucks.com
GiffordKrassGrohSprinkleSucks.com

Act 26: I Respond to the Order To Show Cause

This feels so much like a homework assignment that I keep looking over the judge's Order to see if there's something I can do for extra credit. (Yes, I know that I've switched to present tense, even though all of the preceding pages were written in past tense. So sue me. No, wait, on second thought...)

In his Order, the judge specified the cases he wants me to discuss and the format he wants me to follow. (Neatness counts!) Is he that helpful and specific when he's dealing with lawyers, or is he being kind to me because he recognizes that I don't know what I'm doing? Or is he getting so sick of me submitting documents in the wrong format that he decided to point me toward the rules in self-defense (so to speak)?

As I do some research on the Web, I find good news and bad news.

The good news is that the cases I need to discuss are available online. Bally is all over the Web – which, since it's the only "sucks.com" case ever decided under federal trademark law, is what I expected. Sunbeam is a little harder to find, but I track it down at the LexisNexis website (from which I can download the decision for about $10). And I even find a good discussion of "pinpoint citations" (which the judge is requiring – and about which I am totally in the dark) on the LegalCitation.net website, which appears to be a very helpful resource.

The bad news is that even though I am able to figure out that "E.D. Mich. L.R." means "Eastern District of Michigan Local Rules," it turns out that those rules are not online. Nearly every other U.S. District Court has their rules online, but not this one. So I call the court clerk, who tells me that I can buy a copy of the rules for $100! What a deal! Luckily, I find someone in the court's computer department who tells me that the rules will be online next week – and since that will be too late to do me any good, she offers to send me the rule that I need.

But then my luck takes an even more dramatic turn for the better: The very next day, while I'm exploring the Web, I see that the Eastern District Bankruptcy Court website, which was offline yesterday, is back online – and it has a link to the Eastern District Rules that I've been looking for! And then things get even better: This morning (November 1, 2001), I find that the new website for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan is online! The timing is perfect, the site has all kinds of information that will be very helpful to me. You can see the site (which is very nicely done, in my opinion) at:

http://www.MIED.USCourts.gov/

So, to get back on-topic: Here's my response to the Order To Show Cause.

(Note: I have not included the "Certificate of Service.")

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

THE TAUBMAN COMPANY LIMITED

PARTNERSHIP,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 01-72987

HON. LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

WEBFEATS and HENRY MISHKOFF,

Defendants.

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On October 11, 2001, the Court enjoined Defendants from operating a website with the host name www.shopsatwillowbend.com. On October 16, 2001, Plaintiff filed an "Expedited Motion to Amend Preliminary Injunction" with the Court. At issue is whether the "safe distance" rule applies in this case and whether the Court may restrain Defendants' use of their "sucks.com" websites that may incorporate Plaintiff's trademark. On October 22, 2001, the Court ordered Defendants to show cause as to whether the "safe distance" rule is applicable in this case.

The "safe distance" rule is not applicable in this case, for the following reasons:

Defendants Are Not "Proven" Infringers. The "safe distance" rule applies only to a party who has already been found liable for trademark infringement. This description does not apply to Defendants.

Defendants Have Not "Slightly" Changed Plaintiff's Mark. The "safe distance" rule applies only to an infringer who continues business with a "slight" change in its mark. Adding "sucks.com" to a mark is a major change to that mark.

In support of this response, Defendants rely on the accompanying brief.

Respectfully submitted,

Henry Mishkoff
WebFeats
2661 Midway Road, #224-225
Carrollton, TX 75006
972.931.5421

Defendants

Dated: November 1, 2001