Defendant King Sports Responds to Callaway’s Allegations
As you may recall from this prior post, Callaway recently accused a handful of clone club makers of (1) infringing one UTILITY patent, (2) infringing three DESIGN patents, (3) infringing two trademarks, (4) trademark dilution, (5) breach of contract, (6) common law unfair competition, and (7) false advertising!
One of the defendants has responded to the Complaint.
The following affirmative defenses are included in King Sports' Answer (click here to review the complete Answer):
David Dawsey - Monitoring Clone Golf Club Patent Litigation
One of the defendants has responded to the Complaint.
The following affirmative defenses are included in King Sports' Answer (click here to review the complete Answer):
“Defendant alleges its products are not substantially similar to any products offered by plaintiff”
“Defendant alleges that any similarity between any products offered by this Defendant and the plaintiff is mere coincidence and is incapable of creating any confusion in the market place”
“Defendant alleges that there is no market confusion of any products offered by this answering Defendant as compared to any products offered by plaintiff”
“Defendant alleges that its actions constitute nothing more than good faith competition and the plaintiff herein cannot stifle such competition”
“Defendant alleges that the technology and material use in the products marketed by this answering Defendant are within the public domain, and are not sufficiently unique to be subject to protection by patent or trademark”
“Defendant alleges that any infringement or delusion was inadvertent and innocent”
Check out King Sports' website and see if you agree with their affirmative defenses!“Defendant alleges that any similarity between any products offered by this Defendant and the plaintiff is mere coincidence and is incapable of creating any confusion in the market place”
“Defendant alleges that there is no market confusion of any products offered by this answering Defendant as compared to any products offered by plaintiff”
“Defendant alleges that its actions constitute nothing more than good faith competition and the plaintiff herein cannot stifle such competition”
“Defendant alleges that the technology and material use in the products marketed by this answering Defendant are within the public domain, and are not sufficiently unique to be subject to protection by patent or trademark”
“Defendant alleges that any infringement or delusion was inadvertent and innocent”
David Dawsey - Monitoring Clone Golf Club Patent Litigation
Posted by David Dawsey PE Esq at 1/10/2008 12:00 AM 
Categories: Knock-Offs and Counterfeit Clubs, Litigation, Woods, Irons, General Legal
Categories: Knock-Offs and Counterfeit Clubs, Litigation, Woods, Irons, General Legal
Comments