You're viewing Docket Item 26 from the case Ford Motor Company v. Heritage Management Group, Inc. et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:





Plaintiff,




FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware
)
) ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS
corporation,

)

)

)
vs.
)

)
HERITAGE MANAGEMENT GROUP,
)
INC., a Tennessee corporation, and MARC )
)
A. COLLINS, an individual,

)

)


Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee

Chief Judge Curtis L. Collier


Defendants.

Civil No.: 1:11-CV-92

ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS








IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

AT CHATTANOOGA



For answer to the Verified Complaint in this matter, Defendants Heritage Management

Group, Inc. (“Heritage”) and Marc A. Collins (“Collins”) hereinafter referred to collectively as

“Defendants”, state as follows:

FIRST DEFENSE



These defendants have never been served with the required summons or complaint, but

now answer only due to this Court’s Order of June 21, 2011. Service of process is insufficient.

SECOND DEFENSE

In response to the allegations of the Verified Complaint, Defendants state as follows:



1.

This paragraph summarizes the allegations of the Verified Complaint (hereinafter

“Complaint”), and no response is necessary. To the extent a response is necessary, all

allegations of liability are denied.





2.

3.

The allegations of Paragraph 2 are admitted.

The allegations of Paragraph 3 of the Complaint are admitted, except that Collins

is not the sole officer and director of Heritage.

Case 1:11-cv-00092 Document 26 Filed 06/30/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 217





4.

5.

The allegations of Paragraph 4 are admitted.

In response to the allegations of Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, Defendants admit

that they conduct business in this District.



6.

In response to the allegations of Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, Defendants admit

that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction.







7.

8.

9.

and belief.





10.

11.

The allegations of Paragraph 7 of the Complaint are admitted.

The allegations of Paragraph 8 of the Complaint are admitted.

The allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Complaint are admitted, upon information

The allegations of Paragraph 10 of the Complaint are admitted.

The allegations of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint are admitted upon information

and belief, except that Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief regarding

the allegation of “highly regarded” trademarks, which is vague and ambiguous.



12.

The allegations of Paragraph 12 of the Complaint are admitted, upon information

and belief.



13.

The allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Complaint are admitted, upon information

and belief.



14.

The allegations of Paragraph 14 of the Complaint are admitted, upon information

and belief.



15.

The allegations of Paragraph 15 of the Complaint are admitted, upon information

and belief.



16.

Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations of Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, and hence deny those allegations.



Case 1:11-cv-00092 Document 26 Filed 06/30/11 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 218

2



17.

Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations of Paragraph 17 of the Complaint, and hence deny those allegations.



18.

Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Complaint, and hence deny those allegations.



19.

Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations of Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, and hence deny those allegations.



20.

Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations of Paragraph 20 of the Complaint, and hence deny those allegations.



21.

The allegations of Paragraph 21 of the Complaint are denied as stated.

Defendants admit that genuine Ford parts were received by Heritage, and sold by Heritage. On

occasion, when genuine Ford parts were received in damaged or incomplete or outdated

packaging, Heritage provided replacement packaging for the corresponding genuine Ford parts.



22.

Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations of Paragraph 22 of the Complaint, and hence deny those allegations.



23.

Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations of Paragraph 23 of the Complaint, and hence deny those allegations.



24.

Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations of Paragraph 24 of the Complaint, and hence deny those allegations.



25.

Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations of Paragraph 25 of the Complaint, and hence deny those allegations.



26.

The allegations of Paragraph 26 of the Complaint are denied. Defendants admit

that they are not affiliated with, authorized by, or sponsored by Ford, but aver that they bought

genuine Ford parts which were repackaged on occasion to correctly identify those Ford parts.



Case 1:11-cv-00092 Document 26 Filed 06/30/11 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 219

3



27.

The allegations of Paragraph 27 of the Complaint are denied. Again, to

Defendants’ knowledge, only genuine Ford parts were purchased and resold, with those parts

being correctly identified as Ford parts. All allegations of confusion or deception are expressly

denied.





28.

29.

The allegations of Paragraph 28 of the Complaint are denied.

The allegations of Paragraph 29 of the Complaint are denied. The allegations of

acting with intent to mislead and deceive consumers and the public in general, are expressly

denied.



30.

Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations of Paragraph 30 of the Complaint, and hence deny those allegations.



31.

The allegations of Paragraph 31 of the Complaint are admitted, with there being

no basis for Defendants to submit to Ford’s quality control specifications or to pay Ford

royalties.







32.

33.

34.

The allegations of Paragraph 32 of the Complaint are denied.

The allegations of Paragraph 33 of the Complaint are denied.

In response to Paragraph 34 of the Complaint, Defendants incorporate all prior

responses hereto.















35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

The allegations of Paragraph 35 of the Complaint are denied.

The allegations of Paragraph 36 of the Complaint are denied.

The allegations of Paragraph 37 of the Complaint are denied.

The allegations of Paragraph 38 of the Complaint are denied.

The allegations of Paragraph 39 of the Complaint are denied.

The allegations of Paragraph 40 of the Complaint are denied.

Case 1:11-cv-00092 Document 26 Filed 06/30/11 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 220

4





41.

42.

The allegations of Paragraph 41 of the Complaint are denied.

In response to Paragraph 42 of the Complaint, Defendants incorporate all prior

responses hereto.















43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

The allegations of Paragraph 43 of the Complaint are denied.

The allegations of Paragraph 44 of the Complaint are denied.

The allegations of Paragraph 45 of the Complaint are denied.

The allegations of Paragraph 46 of the Complaint are denied.

The allegations of Paragraph 47 of the Complaint are denied.

The allegations of Paragraph 48 of the Complaint are denied.

In response to Paragraph 49 of the Complaint, Defendants incorporate all prior

responses hereto.



50.

Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations of Paragraph 50 of the Complaint, and hence deny those allegations.



51.

Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations of Paragraph 51 of the Complaint, and hence deny those allegations.

















52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

The allegations of Paragraph 52 of the Complaint are denied.

The allegations of Paragraph 53 of the Complaint are denied.

The allegations of Paragraph 54 of the Complaint are denied.

The allegations of Paragraph 55 of the Complaint are denied.

The allegations of Paragraph 56 of the Complaint are denied.

The allegations of Paragraph 57 of the Complaint are denied.

The allegations of Paragraph 58 of the Complaint are denied.

Case 1:11-cv-00092 Document 26 Filed 06/30/11 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 221

5



Any allegations of the Complaint not admitted, denied or explained are here and now

denied as if fully set forth.



WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Complaint, Defendants pray that the

Complaint be dismissed, with Defendants recovering their attorney’s fees, costs, and any other

damages to the full extent allowed by applicable law.

THIRD DEFENSE





Defendants, to their knowledge, have never sold any counterfeit Ford parts.

FOURTH DEFENSE

Defendants have not taken any action to deceive, mislead, or confuse any person or

entity, but instead, on occasion, would receive genuine Ford products in damaged, missing or

outdated packaging, and would provide replacement packaging for the genuine Ford products

which then were sold.

FIFTH DEFENSE



To Defendants’ knowledge, all recipients of any Ford parts containing replacement

packaging received genuine Ford parts which were correctly identified on that packaging.

SIXTH DEFENSE

No damage to Plaintiff has resulted from the conduct of Defendants.

SEVENTH DEFENSE

There is no likelihood of confusion regarding any Ford mark.

EIGHTH DEFENSE

No actions of the Defendants have confused, deceived or mislead any customers,







purchasers, or the general public. At all times, defendants bought and sold genuine Ford parts



Case 1:11-cv-00092 Document 26 Filed 06/30/11 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 222

6

which were correctly identified as Ford parts, with each purchaser receiving what they intended

to receive.

NINTH DEFENSE



No actions of the Defendants have diluted, tarnished, blurred or otherwise harmed the

distinctiveness of any Ford mark. Defendants’ actions correctly identified the genuine Ford parts

they bought and sold.

TENTH DEFENSE

For the reasons set forth herein, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted.





Respectfully submitted,

GRANT, KONVALINKA & HARRISON, P.C.




By: s/Mathew D. Brownfield

Mathew D. Brownfield (BPR #10921)
Thomas M. Gautreaux (BPR #023636)
633 Chestnut Street, Suite 900
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37450-0900
(423) 756-8400

Attorneys for Defendants







Case 1:11-cv-00092 Document 26 Filed 06/30/11 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 223

7


I hereby certify that on June 30, 2011, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically.
Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system to all parties
indicated on the electronic filing receipt. All other parties will be served by regular United
States mail. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s electronic filing system.



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE































s/Mathew D. Brownfield





























P:\Folders A-H\H881\001\20-11-05-25 answer of defendants.doc































Case 1:11-cv-00092 Document 26 Filed 06/30/11 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 224

8