i.think inc v. Minekey Inc et al

Filing 8

Original ANSWER to Complaint by Minekey Inc (Weinlein, Craig)

i.think inc v. Minekey Inc et al

Doc. 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION i.think inc., Plaintiff, v. MINEKEY, INC.; DELIP ANDRA; and INTERNET UNLIMITED, LLC Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § §

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3-08CV0163-P

DEFENDANT MINEKEY INC.'S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO THE HONORABLE COURT: Defendant Minekey, Inc. ("Minekey") asserts the following defenses to Plaintiff's Original Petition and Application for Temporary and Permanent Restraining Order ("petition"), as follows: FIRST DEFENSE The court lacks personal jurisdiction over Minekey. SECOND DEFENSE Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Subject to the aforementioned defenses, Minekey answers Plaintiff's petition as follows: 1. Minekey is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the

truth of the averments contained in paragraph 1 of the petition, and therefore denies same. 2. Minekey denies the averment that it is a California corporation, but admits the

remaining averments contained in paragraph 2 of the petition. 1

Dockets.Justia.com

3. 4.

Minekey admits the averments contained in paragraph 3 of the petition. Minekey is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the

truth of the averments contained in paragraph 4 of the petition, and therefore denies same. 5. Minekey admits that the damages sought by ithink inc. exceed the minimum

jurisdictional limits of the Court, but denies the remaining averments contained in paragraph 5 of the petition. 6. 7. Minekey denies the averments contained in paragraph 6 of the petition. Minekey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the averments contained in paragraph 7 of the petition, and therefore denies same. 8. Minekey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the averments contained in paragraph 8 of the petition, and therefore denies same. 9. Minekey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the averments contained in paragraph 9 of the petition, and therefore denies same. 10. Minekey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the averments contained in paragraph 10 of the petition, and therefore denies same. 11. Minekey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the averments contained in paragraph 11 of the petition, and therefore denies same. 12. Minekey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the averments concerning Plaintiff's discovery of the website "ithink." Minekey admits that the domain names "ithink.com" and "ithink.net" are operated by Minekey, and admits that it acquired those domains from Defendant IU.

2

13.

Minekey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the averments contained in paragraph 13 of the petition, and therefore denies same. 14. 15. 16. Minekey denies the averments contained in paragraph 15 of the petition. Minekey denies the averments contained in paragraph 15 of the petition. Minekey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the averments contained in paragraph 16 of the petition, and therefore denies same. 17. Minekey denies that Andra owns the ithink domains, but admits that it owns the

ithink domains. Minekey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments contained in paragraph 17 of the petition, and therefore denies same. 18. Minekey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the averments contained in paragraph 18 of the petition, and therefore denies same. 19. Minekey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the averments contained in paragraph 19 of the petition, and therefore denies same. 20. 21. 22. 23. Minekey denies the averments contained in paragraph 20 of the petition. Minekey denies the averments contained in paragraph 21 of the petition. Minekey denies the averments contained in paragraph 22 of the petition. Minekey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the averments contained in paragraph 23 of the petition, and therefore denies same. 24. Minekey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the averments contained in paragraph 24 of the petition, and therefore denies same.

3

25.

Minekey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the averments contained in paragraph 25 of the petition, and therefore denies same. 26. Minekey denies the averment that ithink is a distinctive name in the field of online

surveys. Minekey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments contained in paragraph 26 of the petition, and therefore denies same. 27. Minekey denies the averments that ithink inc. is a strong mark. Minekey is

without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments contained in paragraph 27 of the petition, and therefore denies same. 28. petition. 29. Minekey denies the averment that the service mark ithink inc. is distinctive. Minekey incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1-27 of the

Minekey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments contained in paragraph 29 of the petition, and therefore denies same. 30. 31. 32. petition. 33. 34. 35. 36. petition. 4 Minekey denies the averments contained in paragraph 33 of the petition. Minekey denies the averments contained in paragraph 34 of the petition. Minekey denies the averments contained in paragraph 35 of the petition. Minekey incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1-35 of the Minekey denies the averments contained in paragraph 30 of the petition. Minekey denies the averments contained in paragraph 31 of the petition. Minekey incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1-31 of the

37.

Minekey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the averments contained in paragraph 37 of the petition, and therefore denies same. 38. Minekey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the averments contained in paragraph 38 of the petition, and therefore denies same. 39. Minekey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the averments contained in paragraph 39 of the petition, and therefore denies same. 40. Minekey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the averments contained in paragraph 40 of the petition, and therefore denies same. 41. Minekey admits the averment that Defendant IU sold the domains to Minekey,

and denies the remaining averments in paragraph 41 of the petition. 42. Minekey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the averments contained in paragraph 42 of the petition, and therefore denies same. 43. 44. petition. 45. 46. 47. 48. Minekey denies the averments contained in paragraph 45 of the petition. Minekey denies the averments contained in paragraph 46 of the petition. Minekey denies the averments contained in paragraph 47 of the petition. Paragraph 48 of the petition does not contain any factual averments, and thus no Minekey denies the averments in paragraph 43 of the petition. Minekey incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1-43 of the

response is required. To the extent a response is required, Minekey denies the averments in paragraph 48.

5

49.

The remaining paragraphs of the petition do not contain any factual averments,

and thus no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Minekey denies any such averments.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 50. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands and Plaintiff's own

inequitable conduct. WHEREFORE, Minekey prays that Plaintiff take nothing by its claims, and that Minekey be dismissed from this action and recover its costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Craig W. Weinlein Craig W. Weinlein State Bar No. 21095500 Barry R. Bell State Bar No. 02068550 Prescott Smith State Bar No. 24013534 CARRINGTON, COLEMAN, SLOMAN & BLUMENTHAL, L.L.P. 901 Main Street, Suite 5500 Dallas, Texas 75202 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant Minekey, Inc.

6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing instrument was served upon the attorneys of record in the above cause in accordance with Rule 5, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 5.1(d) on this 19th day of February, 2008.

/s/ Craig W. Weinlein

7