UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

CAREER AGENTS NETWORK,

INC., a Michigan corporation, Case No. 2:09-cv-12269

Plaintiff, Hon. Robert H. Cleland

vs.

careeragentsnetwork.biz,

careeragentnetwork.biz, Lawrence R.

White, an individual, and Aeromedia

Marketing, Inc., a Michigan corporation,

Defendants.

 /

Jaffe, Raitt, Heuer, and Weiss, P.C. Clos, Russell & Wirth, P.C.

Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendants

Joan H. Lowenstein (P39422) Charles E. Clos (P43380)

Michael S. Khoury (P34413) William M. Clos (P65113)

201 S. Main Street, Suite 300 35551 Ford Road, Suite 100

Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Westland, MI 48185

(734) 222-4776 (734) 326-2101

jlowenstein@jaffelaw.com cclos@lawyersmichigan.com

mkhoury@jaffelaw.com wclos@lawyersmichigan.com

 /

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

NOW COME careeragentsnetwork.biz, careeragentnetwork.biz (hereinafter “Defendant

Domain Names”), Lawrence R. White (“Defendant White”), and AeroMedia Marketing, Inc.

(“Defendant AeroMedia”), by their attorneys, Clos, Russell & Wirth, P.C., and for their Answer to

First Amended Complaint, state:

Jurisdiction and Venue

1. Answering paragraph 1, the allegations are admitted.

2. Answering paragraph 2, Defendants admit the allegations as to jurisdiction as it relates to

Case 2:09-cv-12269-RHC-MJH Document 21 Filed 07/29/2009 Page 1 of 8
2

Defendant Domain Names. The remaining allegations in paragraph 2 are neither admitted

nor denied for lack of knowledge and information.

3. Answering paragraph 3, the allegations are admitted.

4. Answering paragraph 4, the allegations are admitted.

Parties

5. Answering paragraph 5, Defendants admit that Plaintiff is a Michigan corporation but can

neither admit nor deny the remaining allegations for lack of knowledge and information.

6. Answering paragraph 6, Defendants admit that Defendant Domain Names are Internet

domain names. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are neither admitted nor denied

for lack of knowledge and information.

7. Answering paragraph 7, the allegations are admitted.

8. Answering paragraph 8, the allegations are admitted.

Common Allegations

9. Answering paragraph 9, Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations for lack of

knowledge and information.

10. Answering paragraph 10, Defendants admit that Exhibit A is attached to Plaintiff’s

Complaint. Answering further, Defendants can neither admit nor deny the remaining

allegations for lack of knowledge and information.

11. Answering paragraph 11, Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations for lack of

knowledge and information.

12. Answering paragraph 12, Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations for lack of

knowledge and information.

13. Answering paragraph 13, Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations for lack of

Case 2:09-cv-12269-RHC-MJH Document 21 Filed 07/29/2009 Page 2 of 8
3

knowledge and information.

14. Answering paragraph 14, Defendant AeroMedia admits to registering the Domain Names

with DirectI and opting for the free Privacy Protect service. The Defendants can neither

admit nor deny the remaining allegations for lack of knowledge and information.

15. Answering paragraph 15, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein for the reason

that they are untrue as at the times of registering and using the Domain Names, Plaintiff had

yet to register its alleged mark. Answering further, at no time when the Domain Names were

registered or subsequent thereto did any Defendants attempt to trade on the goodwill of

Plaintiff as at all times the Domain Names were used for non-commercial purposes.

16. Answering paragraph 16, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein for the reason

that they are untrue as Defendants had no intent, bad faith or otherwise, to profit from use

of the Domain Names. 

17. Answering paragraph 17, Defendants admit the allegations however, Defendants deny that

consent was required from Plaintiff.

18. Answering paragraph 18, Defendants admit that they have not registered the mark or sought

intellectual property rights in Defendant Domain Names.

16.(sic)Answering paragraph 16 (sic), Defendants admit the allegations. Answering further,

Defendants never intended nor did they ever attempt to use the Defendant Domain Names

to offer goods or services as their use was at all times non-commercial.

19. To the extent that this allegation is capable of being answered, Defendants did not make any

commercial use of Defendant Domain Names, their entire use was bona fide noncommercial, and Defendants’ use was lawful and protected under the fair use doctrine.

20. Answering paragraph 20, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein for the reason

Case 2:09-cv-12269-RHC-MJH Document 21 Filed 07/29/2009 Page 3 of 8
4

that they are untrue.

21. Answering paragraph 21, Defendants admit that AeroMedia was the actual registrant of the

Defendant Domain Names. Answering further, it is denied as untrue that Lawrence White

was a registrant. The remaining allegations in this paragraph can be neither admitted nor

denied for lack of information and knowledge.

COUNT I

(Cybersquatting)

Under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(d)

22. No response required.

23. Answering paragraph 23, Defendant AeroMedia Marketing admits that it willfully registered

the Domain Names and denies that Lawrence White was a registrant. The remaining

allegations in this paragraph are denied as untrue.

24. Answering paragraph 24, Defendant AeroMedia Marketing denies that it possessed bad faith

intent in registering the Domain Names and further denies that it intended to profit from

same as its use was at all times “non-commercial”. Answering further, Defendant White

denies as untrue that he was a registrant of the Domain Names.

25. Answering paragraph 25, Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations for lack of

knowledge and information.

COUNT II

Trademark Infringement

(under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a))

26. No response required.

27. Answering paragraph 27, Defendant White denies that he has “used” Plaintiff’s alleged mark

in any manner. Answering further, Defendant AeroMedia did not use any confusing or

similar marks for purposes of marketing their services or in an effort to cause confusion or

Case 2:09-cv-12269-RHC-MJH Document 21 Filed 07/29/2009 Page 4 of 8
5

mistake as use of the Domain Names was at all times non-commercial.

28. Answering paragraph 28, Defendants AeroMedia and White deny that they have

commercially promoted or misrepresented any services they provide or intend to provide or

that their use was anything but non-commercial.

29. Answering paragraph 29, Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations for lack of

knowledge and information.

WHEREFORE, Defendants request:

A. Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice;

B. Defendants be awarded costs and attorney fees wrongfully incurred in having to

defend this lawsuit; and

C. Award any other relief deemed just and equitable under the circumstances.

Respectfully Submitted,

CLOS, RUSSELL & WIRTH, P.C.

/s/ Charles E. Clos 

Charles E. Clos (P43380)

William M. Clos (P65113)

35551 Ford Road, Suite 100

Westland, MI 48185

(734) 326-2101

cclos@lawyersmichigan.com

wclos@lawyersmichigan.com

Attorneys for Defendants

Certificate of Service

The foregoing Answer was electronically filed on July 29, 2009. Notice of this filing will

be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this

filing through the Court’s system.

 /s/ Charles E. Clos 

Case 2:09-cv-12269-RHC-MJH Document 21 Filed 07/29/2009 Page 5 of 8
6

Charles E. Clos (P43380)

William M. Clos (P65113)

35551 Ford Road, Suite 100

Westland, MI 48185

(734) 326-2101

cclos@lawyersmichigan.com

wclos@lawyersmichigan.com

Attorneys for Defendants

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

NOW COME careeragentsnetwork.biz, careeragentnetwork.biz (“Defendant Domain

Names”), Lawrence R. White (“Defendant White”), and AeroMedia Marketing, Inc. (“Defendant

AeroMedia”), by their attorneys, Clos, Russell & Wirth, P.C., and for their Affirmative Defenses,

state:

1. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

2. The alleged acts of Defendants were protected by statute.

3. The alleged acts of Defendants are protected by the First Amendment to the United States

Constitution.

4. Defendants at no time solicited business or attempted to compete with Plaintiff.

5. Defendants at no time had a bad faith intent as the term is defined under the applicable

statute.

6. Defendants use of the alleged “mark” was prior in time to Plaintiff’s registration of the mark.

7. Defendants’ websites were non-commercial and, as such, the Lanham Act does not apply.

8. Defendants’ websites were “gripe sites” as such, they are protected by free speech.

9. Defendants’ websites as gripe sites, constitute fair use.

10. Defendants’ websites as gripe sites, contain no likelihood of confusion with Plaintiff’s

marks.

Case 2:09-cv-12269-RHC-MJH Document 21 Filed 07/29/2009 Page 6 of 8
7

11. Plaintiff’s marks do not have wide recognition, substantial good will or public recognition

as the Plaintiff has only been in business for six (6) months.

12. Plaintiff’s mark has not been in long and continuous use and has no international recognition

only having been created within the last six (6) months.

13. Under applicable statutes and case law if a gripe site identified by a target’s name or

trademark is non-commercial and even if there is confusion, free speech rights prevail.

14. Plaintiff’s purported mark has not acquired any distinctiveness and secondary meaning.

15. At the time that Defendants created their websites, Plaintiff did not even have a website.

16. Trademark law cannot be used to suppress criticism of a company or product.

17. Gripe sites do not create a likelihood of confusion or dilution.

Special Affirmative Defense

18. Defendant Lawrence White is not a proper party to this matter as any and all acts as alleged

by Plaintiff were performed by the corporate defendant, AeroMedia Marketing, Inc.

Case 2:09-cv-12269-RHC-MJH Document 21 Filed 07/29/2009 Page 7 of 8
8

19. Defendants reserve the right to add to these Affirmative Defenses as they become known

throughout discovery.

Respectfully Submitted,

CLOS, RUSSELL & WIRTH, P.C.

/s/ Charles E. Clos 

Charles E. Clos (P43380)

William M. Clos (P65113)

35551 Ford Road, Suite 100

Westland, MI 48185

(734) 326-2101

cclos@lawyersmichigan.com

wclos@lawyersmichigan.com

Attorneys for Defendants

Certificate of Service

The foregoing Affirmative Defenses were electronically filed on July 29, 2009. Notice of

this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may

access this filing through the Court’s system.

 /s/ Charles E. Clos 

Charles E. Clos (P43380)

William M. Clos (P65113)

35551 Ford Road, Suite 100

Westland, MI 48185

(734) 326-2101

cclos@lawyersmichigan.com

wclos@lawyersmichigan.com

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:09-cv-12269-RHC-MJH Document 21 Filed 07/29/2009 Page 8 of 8