John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Supap Kirtsaeng et al

Filing 3

ANSWER to Complaint with JURY DEMAND. Document filed by Supap Kirtsaeng.(Israel, Sam)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------X
JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC.,
08 CV 7834
Plaintiff
Lynch, G, USDJ
Jury Trial Demanded

-againstSUPAP KIRTSAENG D/B/A BLUECHRISTINE99
and JOHN DOE NOS. 1-5,
Defendants
___________________________________________X
ANSWER

Defendant Supap Kirtsaeng (“Kirtsaeng” or “Defendant”), by his counsel, Sam P.
Israel, P.C., as and for his answer to the complaint (the “Complaint”) of Plaintiff John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., (“Plaintiff”) states and alleges as follows:
1.

The Defendant denies personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the reason why the Plaintiff “is bringing this action” as alleged in paragraph 1
of the Complaint, but denies that he engaged in “unlawful activities” as alleged therein.
2.

Without admitting the sufficiency of the pleadings, the Defendant admits that

the Plaintiff purports to bring claims under the statutes cited in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the
Complaint and refers to the Court all matters as to whether it has jurisdiction and as to
whether venue is appropriate.
3.

The Defendant denies personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truthfulness of the allegations set forth in paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
4.

The Defendant admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 5 of the

Complaint.

1

5.

The Defendant denies personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the identity or existence of the individuals or entities referenced in paragraph
6 of the Complaint.
6.

The Defendant denies personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truthfulness of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 7-15 of the
Complaint.
7.

The Defendant denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 16 to the extent

that they suggest that the Defendant was on notice of the need to get permission, as
alleged therein and that such permission was necessary.
8.

The Defendant repeats each of his foregoing responses in answering

paragraph 17 of the Complaint and incorporates same herein.
9.

The Defendant denies personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truthfulness of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 18-19 of the
Complaint.
10.

The Defendant denies the truthfulness of the allegations set forth in

paragraphs 20-23 of the Complaint.
11.

The Defendant repeats each of his foregoing responses in answering

paragraph 24 of the Complaint and incorporates same herein.
12.

The Defendant denies personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truthfulness of the allegations set forth in paragraph 25 of the Complaint.
13.

The Defendant, upon information and belief, denies the allegations set forth

in paragraph 26 of the Complaint.

2

14.

The Defendant denies the truthfulness of the allegations set forth in

paragraphs 27- 30 of the Complaint.
15.

The Defendant repeats each of his foregoing responses in answering

paragraph 31 of the Complaint and incorporates same herein.
16.

The Defendant denies the truthfulness of the allegations set forth in paragraph

32 of the Complaint.
17.

The Defendant denies the truthfulness of each and every other allegation in

the Complaint not otherwise expressly addressed herein.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
First Affirmative Defense
The Complaint fails to state a claim, in whole or in part, upon which relief may be
granted.
Second Affirmative Defense
The Plaintiff has failed to mitigate any alleged damages.
Third Affirmative Defense
The Plaintiff has waived the right to bring the claims asserted in the Complaint.
Fourth Affirmative Defense
The Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of laches.
Fifth Affirmative Defense
The Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
Sixth Affirmative Defense
The Plaintiff’s trademark claims constitute an impermissible restraint of trade.
Seventh Affirmative Defense

3

The Plaintiff’s trademark claims are barred by the doctrine of abandonment
inasmuch as the Plaintiff maintains no consistent standards for the quality and/or the
presentation of its products.
Eighth Affirmative Defense
The Plaintiff’s copyright claim is barred by the failure to name an indispensable
party.
Ninth Affirmative Defense
Some or all of the relief sought in the Plaintiff’s copyright claim is barred by the
Defendant’s innocent intent.
Tenth Affirmative Defense
The Plaintiff has alleged no injury to the public and/or consumers to give rise to a
claim for unfair competition.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant hereby
demands a trial by jury.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court:
a.
Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice;
b.
Deny each and every demand for relief set forth in the Complaint;
c.
Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted:
Sam P. Israel, P.C.
Dated: New York, New York
December 1, 2008

By:_S/__________________________
Sam P. Israel (SPI 0270)
Attorney for Defendant
Supap Kirtsaeng
1 Liberty Plaza 23rd Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

4

5