PAGE 1 – PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF 

DEFENDANTS AND COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFFS 

Susan D. Pitchford, OSB No. 980911

E-mail: sdp@chernofflaw.com

Amelia S. Forsberg, OSB No. 133611 

E-mail: aforsberg@chernofflaw.com

CHERNOFF VILHAUER LLP

111 SW Columbia Street, Suite 725 

Portland, Oregon 97201 

Telephone: (503) 227-5631 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Universal Tea Company, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION

UNIVERSAL TEA COMPANY, INC., 

dba STASH TEA COMPANY, an 

Oregon corporation 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

STASH CANNABIS COMPANY, LLC 

and CHRIS MATTHEWS

 Defendant. 

Civil Case No. 3:16-cv-00685-HZ 

UNIVERSAL TEA COMPANY, INC., dba 

STASH TEA COMPANY’S ANSWER TO 

COUNTERCLAIMS OF DEFENDANTS 

AND COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFFS 

STASH CANNABIS COMPANY, LLC, 

WELLSTON LLC, CHRIS MATTHEWS 

AND ANTHONY BEAUDOIN

TRADEMARK CASE

JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

 

Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Universal Tea Company, Inc., dba Stash Tea 

Company (hereafter “Stash Tea”) submits this Response to the Counterclaims of Defendants and 

Counterclaim Plaintiffs Stash Cannabis Company, LLC, Wellstone LLC, Chris Matthews, and 

Anthony Beaudoin (“Stash Cannabis” except when context indicates otherwise). 

 

Case 3:16-cv-00685-HZ Document 21 Filed 10/06/16 Page 1 of 5
PAGE 2 – PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF 

DEFENDANTS AND COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFFS 

A. Nature of Action 

1. Stash Tea admits the allegation of paragraph 1 of the Counterclaims, that Stash 

Cannabis seeks declaratory judgment that it has not infringed the alleged statutory and common 

trademarks rights asserted against it by Stash Tea and that Stash Cannabis seeks declaratory 

judgment that that it has not diluted the Stash Tea trademarks, and that it has not unfairly 

competed with Stash Tea. 

B. Jurisdiction and Venue 

2. Stash Tea admits the allegations of paragraph 2 of the Counter claims that this is 

an action for declaratory judgment arising under (i) the trademark laws of the United States, 15 

USC § 1051 et seq. (the “Trademark Act”); (ii) ORS statutory and common law; and (iii) 28 

U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 (the Declaratory Judgment Act). This Court has original jurisdiction 

over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. 

3. Stash Tea admits the allegations of paragraph 3 of the Counterclaims that Stash 

Tea is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court because it is continuously present in 

Oregon. Stash further admits the allegations of paragraph 3 of the Counterclaims that assertions 

of infringement of alleged trademarks and statutory rights were filed in this judicial district and 

directed to Stash Cannabis in Oregon and that this Court has both general and specific personal 

jurisdiction over Stash Tea. Stash Tea denies the allegations of paragraph 3 of the Counterclaims 

that Stash Tea’s assertions of infringement of alleged trademarks and statutory rights are false. 

4. Stash Tea admits the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Counterclaims that venue 

of this action is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C.§ 1391(b)(1) and (2) because Stash Tea is 

subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court in this district and thus qualifies as a resident 

Case 3:16-cv-00685-HZ Document 21 Filed 10/06/16 Page 2 of 5
PAGE 3 – PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF 

DEFENDANTS AND COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFFS 

under 28 U.S.C.§ 1391(c)(2). Stash Tea further admits that a substantial part of the events giving 

rise to the claims herein has occurred and will continue to occur in this district. 

C. Factual Background 

5. Stash Tea incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1-4 above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

6. Stash Tea denies the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Counterclaims. 

7. Stash Tea admits the allegations of paragraph 7 of the Counterclaims as to 

Defendant Stash Cannabis Company LLC but denies the allegations of paragraph 7 as to the 

remainder of the defendants. 

8. Stash Tea denies the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Counterclaims. 

9. Stash Tea denies the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Counterclaims. 

10. Stash Tea denies the allegations of paragraph 10 of the Counterclaims. 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF – Federal trademark infringement 

11. Stash Tea incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1-10 above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

12. Stash Tea admits the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Counterclaims that there 

is an actual justiciable controversy between the parties on this issue. 

13. Stash Tea admits the allegations of paragraph 13 of the Counterclaims that the 

defendants seek declaratory judgment relief. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF – Federal unfair competition/passing off 

14. Stash Tea incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1-13 above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

Case 3:16-cv-00685-HZ Document 21 Filed 10/06/16 Page 3 of 5
PAGE 4 – PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF 

DEFENDANTS AND COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFFS 

15. Stash Tea admits the allegations of paragraph 15 of the Counterclaims that there 

is an actual justiciable controversy between the parties on this issue. 

16. Stash Tea admits the allegations of paragraph 16 of the Counterclaims that the 

defendants seek declaratory judgment relief. 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF – Federal trademark dilution 

17. Stash Tea incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1-16 above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

18. Stash Tea admits the allegations of paragraph 18 of the Counterclaims that there 

is an actual justiciable controversy between the parties on this issue. 

19. Stash Tea admits the allegations of paragraph 19 of the Counterclaims that the 

defendants seek declaratory judgment relief. 

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF – State trademark dilution 

20. Stash Tea incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1-19 above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

21. Stash Tea admits the allegations of paragraph 21 of the Counterclaims that there 

is an actual justiciable controversy between the parties on this issue. 

22. Stash Tea admits the allegations of paragraph 22 of the Counterclaims that the 

defendants seek declaratory judgment relief. 

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF – Common law trademark infringement 

23. Stash Tea incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1-22 above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

Case 3:16-cv-00685-HZ Document 21 Filed 10/06/16 Page 4 of 5
PAGE 5 – PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF 

DEFENDANTS AND COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFFS 

24. Stash Tea admits the allegations of paragraph 24 of the Counterclaims that there 

is an actual justiciable controversy between the parties on this issue. 

25. Stash Tea admits the allegations of paragraph 25 of the Counterclaims that the 

defendants seek declaratory judgment relief. 

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF – Common law unfair competition 

26. Stash Tea incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1-25 above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

27. Stash Tea admits the allegations of paragraph 27 of the Counterclaims that there 

is an actual justiciable controversy between the parties on this issue. 

28. Stash Tea admits the allegations of paragraph 28 of the Counterclaims that the 

defendants seek declaratory judgment relief. 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

1. Stash Tea denies that Stash Cannabis is entitled to any relief whatsoever in 

consequence of any allegations or averment in the Counterclaims and, accordingly, prays that the 

Court deny all relief to Stash Cannabis. 

DATED: October 6, 2016 CHERNOFF VILHAUER LLP 

/s/Susan D. Pitchford 

Susan D. Pitchford, OSB No. 980911 

Telephone: (503) 227-5631 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Universal Tea Company, 

Inc., dba Stash Tea Company

Case 3:16-cv-00685-HZ Document 21 Filed 10/06/16 Page 5 of 5