Brown et al v. Young

Filing 15

ANSWER to Complaint re 1 ; with Jury Demand and COUNTERCLAIM against Bella Bridesmaid, LLC, Bridget Brown by Yvonne Young. (Tarabichi, Bruno) (Filed on 7/5/2011) Linkage added on 7/6/2011 (bw, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6

DAVID R. OWENS, State Bar No. 180829
[e-mail]
BRUNO W. TARABICHI, State Bar No. 215129
[e-mail]
OWENS TARABICHI LLP
111 N. Market St., Suite 730
San Jose, California 95113
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 408.521.2203
Attorneys for Defendant
Yvonne Young

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12

BRIDGET BROWN and BELLA
BRIDESMAID, LLC,

Case No. 5:11-cv-02517-HRL

13
Plaintiffs,
14
vs.

DEFENDANT YVONNE YOUNG’S
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND
COUNTERCLAIMS

15
YVONNE YOUNG,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

16
Defendant.
17

Case Filed: May 24, 2011
Judge:
Hon. Howard R. Lloyd

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
owens tarabichi llp
Co u ns el or s A t La w

ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
(5:11-cv-02517-HRL)

1
2
3

Defendant Yvonne Young (“Defendant”), through her attorneys, hereby answers Plaintiffs
Bridget Brown and Bella Bridesmaid, LLC’s Complaint as follows:
1.

In response to paragraph 1, Defendant denies that any conduct or omission giving

4

rise to any claim has occurred. Defendant further responds that Plaintiffs’ allegations in

5

paragraph 1 regarding subject matter jurisdiction are legal conclusions and jurisdictional

6

allegations that do not require a response. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant denies each

7

and every allegation in paragraph 1.

8

2.

9

In response to paragraphs 2a.–2c., Defendant responds as follows:
a.

In response to paragraph 2a., Defendant responds that she lacks sufficient

10

knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 2a. and,

11

therefore, denies each and every allegation in paragraph 2a.

12

b.

In response to paragraph 2b., Defendant responds that she lacks sufficient

13

knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 2b. and,

14

therefore, denies each and every allegation in paragraph 2b.

15

c.

In response to paragraph 2c., Defendant admits that she is a natural person

16

who resides at 321 El Bonito Way, Millbrae, California 94030. Except as expressly admitted,

17

Defendant denies each and every allegation in paragraph 2c.

18

3.

In response to paragraph 3, Defendant responds that she lacks sufficient

19

knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 3 and,

20

therefore, denies each and every allegation in paragraph 3.

21

4.

In response to paragraph 4, Defendant responds that she lacks sufficient

22

knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 4 and,

23

therefore, denies each and every allegation in paragraph 4.

24
25
26

5.

In response to paragraph 5, Defendant denies each and every allegation in

paragraph 5.
6.

In response to paragraph 6, Defendant responds that she lacks sufficient

27

knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 6 and,

28

therefore, denies each and every allegation in paragraph 6.

owens tarabichi llp
Co u ns el or s A t La w

1

ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
(5:11-cv-02517-HRL)

1

7.

In response to paragraph 7, Defendant responds that she lacks sufficient

2

knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 7 and,

3

therefore, denies each and every allegation in paragraph 7.

4

8.

In response to paragraph 8, Defendant responds that she lacks sufficient

5

knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations in paragraph 8 and,

6

therefore, denies each and every allegation in paragraph 8.

7

9.

In response to paragraph 9, Defendant admits that Plaintiffs contacted her, wrongly

8

accused her of infringement, and asked her to change the name of her business. Except as

9

expressly admitted, Defendant denies each and every allegation in paragraph 9.

10

10.

In response to paragraph 10, Defendant admits that she and Plaintiff Bridget

11

Brown did meet in person. With regard to the remaining allegations in paragraph 10, Defendant

12

denies each and every remaining allegation in paragraph 10. Except as expressly admitted,

13

Defendant denies each and every allegation in paragraph 10.

14
15
16

11.

In response to paragraph 11, Defendant denies each and every allegation in

paragraph 11.
12.

In response to paragraph 12, Defendant denies that she assured Plaintiffs that she

17

always answered the phone as “Yve’s Bella Bride.” With regard to the remaining allegations in

18

paragraph 12, Defendant responds that she lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a

19

belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 12 and, therefore, denies each and every

20

allegation in paragraph 12.

21

13.

In response to paragraph 13, Defendant responds that she lacks sufficient

22

knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 13 and,

23

therefore, denies each and every allegation in paragraph 13.

24

FIRST COUNT
(Trademark Infringement)

25
26
27

14.

In response to paragraph 14, Defendant denies each and every allegation in

paragraph 14.

28
owens tarabichi llp
Co u ns el or s A t La w

2

ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
(5:11-cv-02517-HRL)

1
2

15.
paragraph 15.

3
4

16.

17.

18.

In response to paragraph 18, Defendant denies each and every allegation in

paragraph 18.

9
10

In response to paragraph 17, Defendant denies each and every allegation in

paragraph 17.

7
8

In response to paragraph 16, Defendant denies each and every allegation in

paragraph 16.

5
6

In response to paragraph 15, Defendant denies each and every allegation in

19.

In response to paragraph 19, Defendant denies each and every allegation in

paragraph 19.

11

In response to Plaintiffs’ WHEREFORE and prayer for relief paragraph following

12

paragraph 19, Defendant denies that there is any basis for judgment against her, damages of any

13

kind for any reason, and prays that Plaintiffs take nothing by the Complaint, that the Complaint

14

be dismissed with prejudice, and that the Court order such further relief as it deems just and

15

proper.

16

SECOND COUNT
(False Advertising; § 43(a) of the Lanham Act)

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

20.
paragraph 20.
21.

22.

In response to paragraph 22, Defendant denies each and every allegation in

paragraph 22.
THIRD COUNT
(Cybersquatting)

25

27

In response to paragraph 21, Defendant denies each and every allegation in

paragraph 21.

24

26

In response to paragraph 20, Defendant denies each and every allegation in

23.

In response to paragraph 23, Defendant denies each and every allegation in

paragraph 23.

28
owens tarabichi llp
Co u ns el or s A t La w

3

ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
(5:11-cv-02517-HRL)

1
2
3
4
5
6

24.
paragraph 24.
25.

26.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

FOURTH COUNT
(Unfair Competition, Cal. Bus. & Prof. § 17200 et seq.)
27.

In response to paragraph 27, Defendant denies each and every allegation in

paragraph 27.
28.

In response to paragraph 28, Defendant denies each and every allegation in

paragraph 28.
29.

In response to paragraph 29, Defendant denies each and every allegation in

paragraph 29.
30.

In response to paragraph 30, Defendant denies each and every allegation in

paragraph 30.
31.

In response to paragraph 31, Defendant denies each and every allegation in

paragraph 31.

19

FIFTH COUNT
(Promise Made Without Intention)

20
21

In response to paragraph 26, Defendant denies each and every allegation in

paragraph 26.

8

10

In response to paragraph 25, Defendant denies each and every allegation in

paragraph 25.

7

9

In response to paragraph 24, Defendant denies each and every allegation in

32.

In response to paragraph 32 (misnumbered as paragraph 33 in the Complaint),

22

Defendant denies each and every allegation in paragraph 32 (misnumbered as paragraph 33 in the

23

Complaint)

24

33.

In response to paragraph 33 (misnumbered as paragraph 32 in the Complaint),

25

Defendant denies each and every allegation in paragraph 33 (misnumbered as paragraph 32 in the

26

Complaint).

27
28

34.

In response to paragraph 34 (misnumbered as paragraph 33 in the Complaint),

Defendant denies each and every allegation in paragraph 34 (misnumbered as paragraph 33 in the

owens tarabichi llp
Co u ns el or s A t La w

4

ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
(5:11-cv-02517-HRL)

1
2

Complaint).
35.

In response to paragraph 35 (misnumbered as paragraph 34 in the Complaint),

3

Defendant denies each and every allegation in paragraph 35 (misnumbered as paragraph 34 in the

4

Complaint).

5

36.

In response to paragraph 36 (misnumbered as paragraph 35 in the Complaint),

6

Defendant denies each and every allegation in paragraph 36 (misnumbered as paragraph 35 in the

7

Complaint).

8
9
10
11

37.

In response to paragraph 37 (misnumbered as paragraph 36 in the Complaint),

Defendant denies each and every allegation in paragraph 37 (misnumbered as paragraph 36 in the
Complaint).
38.

In response to paragraph 38 (misnumbered as paragraph 37 in the Complaint),

12

Defendant denies each and every allegation in paragraph 38 (misnumbered as paragraph 37 in the

13

Complaint).

14

In response to Plaintiffs’ WHEREFORE and prayer for relief paragraphs a–i, Defendant

15

denies that there is a basis for judgment against her, damages of any kind for any reason,

16

prejudgment interest, exemplary, punitive and/or treble damages, statutory damages, attorneys’

17

fees, litigation expenses, costs, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, penalties, restitution, or any

18

other relief. Defendant further prays that Plaintiffs take nothing by the Complaint, that the

19

Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, that Defendant be awarded her attorneys’ fees and costs,

20

and that the Court order such further relief as it deems just and proper.

21

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

22

By way of further answer, Defendant alleges and asserts the following defenses in

23

response to the allegations contained in the Complaint. In this regard, Defendant undertakes the

24

burden of proof only as to those defenses that are deemed affirmative defenses by law, regardless

25

of how such defenses are denominated in the instant Answer. Defendant reserves the right to

26

assert other affirmative defenses as this action proceeds based on further discovery, legal

27

research, or analysis that may supply additional facts or lend new meaning or clarification to

28
owens tarabichi llp
Co u ns el or s A t La w

5

ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
(5:11-cv-02517-HRL)

1

Plaintiffs’ claims in the Complaint.

2

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Lack of Standing)

3
4

39.

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because either Plaintiff Bridget

5

Brown or Plaintiff Bella Bridesmaid, LLC lacks standing to sue Defendant. On information and

6

belief, according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s records, Plaintiff Bella Bridesmaid,

7

LLC is the purported owner of U.S. Registration No. 3,114,088 for the BELLA BRIDESMAID

8

design mark, not Plaintiff Bridget Brown. As such, it appears Plaintiff Bridget Brown lacks

9

standing to assert the claims in the Complaint. However, to the extent Plaintiff Bridget Brown is

10

proven to be the owner of the claimed BELLA BRIDESMAID mark, then Plaintiff Bella

11

Bridesmaid, LLC lacks standing to assert the claims in the Complaint.

12

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Claim)

13
14

40.

Plaintiffs’ second claim for false advertising is barred, in whole or in part, because

15

Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for relief. In this regard, Plaintiffs have failed to plead the

16

requisite elements, or fact supporting the requisite elements, of claim for false advertising under §

17

43(a) of the Lanham Act, namely, (1) a false statement of fact in a commercial advertisement, (2)

18

the false statement actually deceived or has the tendency to deceive a substantial segment of its

19

audience, (3) the deception is material, (4) the false statement was made in interstate commerce,

20

and (5) injury as a result of the false statement.

21

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Injury or Damage)

22
23
24

41.

will not suffer any injury or damage.

25

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Waiver)

26
27

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiffs have not and

42.

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of waiver.

28
owens tarabichi llp
Co u ns el or s A t La w

6

ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
(5:11-cv-02517-HRL)

1

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Laches)

2
3

43.

4

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Acquiescence)

5
6

44.

7

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of acquiescence.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Estoppel)

8
9

45.

10

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of estoppel.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unclean Hands)

11
12

46.

13

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Trademark Rights)

14
15
16
17

47.

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiffs have no

trademark rights in the claimed BELLA BRIDESMAID mark or claimed
48.

Both the claimed BELLA BRIDESMAID mark and the claimed

design mark.
design

18

mark are merely descriptive of Plaintiffs’ goods and/or services, such that the marks are not

19

distinctive and do not function as trademarks. In this regard, the English translation of the word

20

BELLA is beautiful, which is a merely descriptive term. Likewise, the term BRIDESMAID is

21

merely descriptive of Plaintiff’s goods and/or services, which consist of bridesmaids gowns and

22

accessories. In fact, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office required Plaintiff(s) to disclaim

23

BRIDESMAID as merely descriptive in U.S. Registration No. 3,114,088. Furthermore, the

24

design of the bridesmaid gown in the design mark is also merely descriptive of Plaintiffs’ goods

25

and/or services. As such, not only do Plaintiffs have no trademark rights in the claimed marks,

26

but Defendant has counterclaimed to cancel Plaintiffs’ asserted U.S. Registration No. 3,114,088

27

for the BELLA BRIDESMAID design mark.

28
owens tarabichi llp
Co u ns el or s A t La w

7

ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
(5:11-cv-02517-HRL)

1

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Likelihood of Confusion)

2
3

49.

Defendant’s YVE’S BELLA BRIDES mark, as well as Defendant’s prior and

4

discontinued use of THE BELLA BRIDE mark, differs in terms of sight, sound, and meaning

5

from Plaintiffs’ claimed mark(s) and has commercial impression that is distinctly different from

6

Plaintiffs’ claimed mark(s). Defendant’s use of her mark does not create a likelihood of

7

confusion among consumers that her goods and/or services are offered by, are sponsored by, or

8

are otherwise endorsed by Plaintiffs. Nor does Defendant’s use of her mark create a likelihood

9

that consumers falsely will believe that Defendant and Plaintiffs are affiliated in any way

10

50.

Furthermore, the adoption and use of the terms BELLA (or its English translation),

11

BRIDE, and BRIDESMAID are part of numerous federally registered and common law third

12

party marks for wedding and bridal related goods and services. The existence of such third party

13

marks requires that Plaintiffs’ claimed mark be very narrowly construed, such that Plaintiffs’

14

claimed mark cannot—as a matter of law—form the basis of a trademark infringement claim

15

against Defendant. By way of example, such third party marks include, but are not limited to, LA

16

BELLA BRIDE (U.S. Registration No. 3,363,430); BEAUTIFUL BRIDE (U.S. Application No.

17

85/267,262); ONLY THE BRIDE IS MORE BEAUTIFUL (U.S. Registration No. 3,268,049);

18

BEAUTIFUL BRIDE (U.S. Registration No. 3,160,118); BELLA BRIDE (bridal shop –

19

www.bellabrideshop.com); LA BELLA BRIDE (magazine and blog –

20

www.labellabridemagazine.com); BELLA BRIDAL SHOPPE (bridal shop – www.bella-

21

bride.com); LA BELLE BRIDE (bridal guide – www.labellebride.com); BELLA BRIDAL

22

FORMAL WEAR (bridal shop – www.bellabridallandformal.com); BELLA BRIDAL

23

GALLERY (bridal shop – www.bellabridal.com); BELLA BRIDES (bridal shop –

24

www.bellabridesbend.com); and so on.

25

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Truth)

26
27
28

51.

Plaintiffs’ claim for false advertising, as well as any claims premised on false

advertising, are barred, in whole or in part, because any relevant statements are true

owens tarabichi llp
Co u ns el or s A t La w

8

ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
(5:11-cv-02517-HRL)

1

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Conduct Not Unlawful, Unfair, or Fraudulent)

2
3
4

52.

Plaintiffs’ claim for unfair competition is barred, in whole or in part, because

Defendant’s conduct was not unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent.

5

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Right to Assert Additional Affirmative Defenses)

6
7

53.

Defendant expressly reserves the right to amend her answer and to assert

8

additional affirmative defenses upon the revelation of more definitive facts by Plaintiffs and upon

9

Defendant’s taking of discovery and investigation of this matter.
COUNTERCLAIMS

10
11
12
13

Pursuant to Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant counterclaims
against Plaintiff as follows:
FIRST COUNTERCLAIM
(Cancellation of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,114,088 for Descriptiveness)

14
15

54.

Defendant believes that she is and will be damaged by the continued registration of

16

U.S. Registration No. 3,114,088 for the

17

registration because, among other things, Plaintiffs have asserted U.S. Registration No. 3,114,088

18

as basis for their claim for trademark infringement.

19

55.

design mark. Defendant is being damaged by such

Plaintiffs’ U.S. Registration No. 3,114,088 should be cancelled pursuant to 15

20

U.S.C. § 1064 and 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e) because the

21

listed in U.S. Registration No. 3,114,088, as well as the goods and services that Plaintiffs provide

22

in the marketplace.

23

is merely descriptive of the services

SECOND COUNTERCLAIM
(Cancellation of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,114,088 as Void Ab Initio)

24
25

56.

Defendant believes that she is and will be damaged by the continued registration of

26

U.S. Registration No. 3,114,088 for the

design mark. Defendant is being damaged by such

27

registration because, among other things, Plaintiffs have asserted U.S. Registration No. 3,114,088

28

as basis for their claim for trademark infringement.

owens tarabichi llp
Co u ns el or s A t La w

9

ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
(5:11-cv-02517-HRL)

1

57.

On June 10, 2005, Plaintiff Bridget Brown filed U.S. Application No. 78/648,680

2

(which later issued as U.S. Registration No. 3,114,088) for the

3

with “retail store services featuring bridal clothing and accessories” in International Class 35.

4

When the initial application was filed on June 10, 2005, the Applicant was listed as Bridget

5

Brown, an individual.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

58.

design mark in connection

According to the California Secretary of State’s online records, Bridget Brown

formed a limited liability company called Bella Bridesmaid LLC on May 18, 2005.
59.

On information and belief, at the time Plaintiff Bridget Brown filed U.S.

Application No. 78/648,680 on June 10, 2005, the actual owner making use of the BELLA
BRIDESMAID mark was Bella Bridesmaid LLC, not Bridget Brown.
60.

Pursuant to 37 CFR § 2.71(d) and Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure

§ 803.06, an application is void if it is initially filed in the name of the wrong applicant.
61.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ U.S. Registration No. 3,114,088 should be cancelled

14

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1064 and 37 CFR § 2.1(d) because it was wrongly filed in the name of

15

Bridget Brown rather than Bella Bridesmaid LLC.

16
17
18

THIRD COUNTERCLAIM
(Cancellation of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,114,088 for Fraud on the PTO)
62.

Defendant believes that she is and will be damaged by the continued registration of

19

U.S. Registration No. 3,114,088 for the

20

registration because, among other things, Plaintiffs have asserted U.S. Registration No. 3,114,088

21

as basis for their claim for trademark infringement.

22

63.

design mark. Defendant is being damaged by such

On June 10, 2005, Plaintiff Bridget Brown filed U.S. Application No. 78/648,680

23

(which later issued as U.S. Registration No. 3,114,088) for the

24

with “retail store services featuring bridal clothing and accessories” in International Class 35

25

based on use in interstate commerce at least as early as March 1, 2000.

26

64.

design mark in connection

On information and belief, Plaintiffs did not use the

design mark in

27

connection with “retail store services featuring bridal clothing and accessories” in interstate

28

commerce at least as early as March 1, 2000, thereby making a false representation of fact in

owens tarabichi llp
Co u ns el or s A t La w

10

ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
(5:11-cv-02517-HRL)

1

connection with the trademark application. Defendant’s information and belief is based on

2

Plaintiffs’ own website, which states that Plaintiff Bridget Brown created Bella Bridesmaid in

3

May of 2000.

4

65.

Plaintiff Bridget Brown’s false representation of fact was material and intended to

5

induce reliance upon the misrepresentation, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office

6

reasonably relied on such false representation of fact in issuing the registration.

7
8

66.

Plaintiff Bridget Brown made the false, material of representation knowingly.

This is evidenced in part by her own website.

9

67.

Defendant has been damaged by the Plaintiff Bridget Brown’s fraud on the United

10

States Patent and Trademark Office, as U.S. Registration No. 3,114,088 is being asserted against

11

her.

12
13

68.

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1064 on the grounds that the registration was obtained fraudulently.

14

FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM
(Intentional Interference with Prospective Advantage)

15
16

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ U.S. Registration No. 3,114,088 should be cancelled

69.

As detailed throughout Defendant’s instant Answer and Counterclaims, there is no

17

likelihood of confusion between Defendant’s YVE’S BELLA BRIDES mark, as well as

18

Defendant’s prior and discontinued use of THE BELLA BRIDE mark, and Plaintiffs’ claimed

19

BELLA BRIDESMAID mark.

20

70.

On information and belief, in an ill-conceived attempt to create the appearance of

21

confusion, Plaintiffs submitted a business listing to Google for The Bella Bride that intentionally

22

listed Plaintiffs’ business address instead of Defendant’s business address. The submission was

23

done intentionally and obviously without Defendant’s consent or knowledge.

24
25
26
27
28

71.

As a result of Plaintiffs intentionally misleading submission to Google,

Defendant’s customers were redirected to Plaintiffs’ place of business.
72.

Defendant and such customers were in an economic relationship that probably

would have resulted in an economic benefit to Defendant.
73.

Plaintiffs knew of the relationship and intended to disrupt the relationship by

owens tarabichi llp
Co u ns el or s A t La w

11

ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
(5:11-cv-02517-HRL)

1
2
3

wrongfully posting a false business submission to Google.
74.

Plaintiffs’ false and fraudulent submission to Google disrupted Defendant’s

relationship with such customers such that Plaintiffs’ wrongful conduct caused Defendant harm.

4

FIFTH COUNTERCLAIM
(Unfair Competition)

5
6

75.

As detailed throughout Defendant’s instant Answer and Counterclaims, there is no

7

likelihood of confusion between Defendant’s YVE’S BELLA BRIDES mark, as well as

8

Defendant’s prior and discontinued use of THE BELLA BRIDE mark, and Plaintiffs’ claimed

9

BELLA BRIDESMAID mark.

10

76.

On information and belief, in an ill-conceived attempt to create the appearance of

11

confusion, Plaintiffs submitted a business listing to Google for The Bella Bride that intentionally

12

listed Plaintiffs’ business address instead of Defendant’s business address. The submission was

13

done intentionally and obviously without Defendant’s consent or knowledge.

14

77.

As a result of Plaintiffs’ intentionally misleading submission to Google,

15

Defendant’s customers were redirected to Plaintiffs’ place of business to the detriment of

16

Defendant.

17

78.

Plaintiffs’ aforementioned actions are unlawful in violation of California Business

18

and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. as such actions constituted, among other things, an

19

unlawful interference with Defendant’s prospective economic advantage.

20

79.

Plaintiffs’ aforementioned actions constitute an unfair business act or practice in

21

violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. as the harm from Plaintiffs’

22

actions clearly outweighs any benefits (and there are none).

23

80.

Plaintiffs’ aforementioned actions are fraudulent in violation of California

24

Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. as such actions were intended to and likely to

25

deceive consumers.

26

SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM
(Declaration of Non-Infringement)

27
28

81.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, Defendant seeks a declaration that

owens tarabichi llp
Co u ns el or s A t La w

12

ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
(5:11-cv-02517-HRL)

1

Defendant’s YVE’S BELLA BRIDES mark, as well as Defendant’s prior and discontinued use of

2

THE BELLA BRIDE mark, does not infringe Plaintiffs’ trademark rights, if any, in the claimed

3

BELLA BRIDESMAID mark. There is an existing and actual controversy between Defendant

4

and Plaintiffs as Plaintiffs have filed the instant lawsuit alleging trademark infringement and

5

related claims against Defendant.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Counterclaimant and Defendant prays for judgment against Plaintiffs and
Counterdefendants as follows:
(i)

that the Court order the Director to make an appropriate entry upon the records of

the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office cancelling U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,114,088;
(ii)

that the Court award Defendant compensatory and punitive damages for Plaintiffs’

intentional interference with prospective economic advantage;
(iii)

that the Court award Defendant restitution and injunctive relief in connection with

Defendant’s claim for unfair competition against Plaintiffs;

15

(iv)

that Plaintiffs take nothing by the Complaint;

16

(v)

that Plaintiffs’ Complaint be dismissed with prejudice;

17

(vi)

that Defendant be awarded her costs of suit and attorneys’ fees incurred in the

18
19

defense of this action, if appropriate; and
(vii)

that the Court order such further relief as it deems just and proper.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
owens tarabichi llp
Co u ns el or s A t La w

13

ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
(5:11-cv-02517-HRL)

1
2

DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
Defendant hereby demands a trial by jury on the claims herein.

3
4

Dated: July 5, 2011

Respectfully submitted,
OWENS TARABICHI LLP

5
6

By

7

David R. Owens
Bruno W. Tarabichi
Attorneys for Defendant
Yvonne Young

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
owens tarabichi llp
Co u ns el or s A t La w

14

ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
(5:11-cv-02517-HRL)