Chris Brown

Case 2:16-cv-02341-SJO-JC Document 33 Filed 01/20/17 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sandra A. Crawshaw-Sparks (SBN 291101)

scrawshaw@proskauer.com
Susan L. Gutierrez (SBN 273980)
sgutierrez@proskauer.com
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, California 90067-3206
Telephone: 310.557.2900
Facsimile: 310.557.2193
Jonathan D. Davis (admitted pro hac vice)
jdd@jddavispc.com
JONATHAN D. DAVIS, P.C.
10 Rockefeller Plaza, Suite 1015
New York, New York 10020
Telephone: 212.687.5464
Facsimile: 212.697.2521
Attorneys for Defendants Christopher Brown aka
Chris Brown, CBE Merchandising, LLC, CBE
Apparel, LLC, and Konfuzed, LLC
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
15
ANDRE KHAZRAEI, an individual,
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 2:16-cv-02341-SJO (JCx)
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTOPHER BROWN aka CHRIS
BROWN, an individual; CBE
MERCHANDISING LLC, a limited liability
company; CBE APPAREL LLC, a limited
liability company; CBE KONFUZED LLC, a
limited liability company; MAXIMA
OPERATING X LLC, a limited liability
company; and DOES 1-25, inclusive,
Defendants.
ANSWER AND DEFENSES

OF DEFENDANTS CHRISTOPHER
BROWN, CBE MERCHANDISING, LLC,
CBE APPAREL, LLC, AND KONFUZED,
LLC TO THE FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendants Christopher Brown, CBE Merchandising, LLC, CBE Apparel,
LLC, and Konfuzed, LLC (collectively, Defendants), by their undersigned
counsel, as and for their answer to the allegations in the First Amended Complaint
(the First Amended Complaint), state as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5
6
1.
Because the allegations in paragraph 1 of the First Amended
Complaint state legal conclusions, no response is required. To the extent any
response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 1, except admit
subject matter jurisdiction exists over Plaintiffs purported federal claims and that
10
11
supplemental jurisdiction exists over his purported state law claims.

2.
12
13
response is required, Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form
14
a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 2, and therefore deny
15
those allegations.
16
3.
17
18
19
that Brown resides in this judicial district.
20
4.
21
22
23
that Brown resides in this judicial district.

THE PARTIES
24
25
5.
Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
26
as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 5 of the First Amended
27
Complaint, and therefore deny those allegations.
28
1
2
3
6.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 6 of the First Amended
Complaint, except admit that Brown resides in Los Angeles County.

7.
Complaint, except admit that Defendant Brown is both an owner of and the sole
manager of Defendants CBE Merchandising, LLC, CBE Apparel, LLC, and
Konfuzed, LLC, and specifically deny that Maxima Operating X LLC is owned,
operated, and/or controlled by Defendant Brown. Defendants further admit that
CBE Merchandising, LLC, CBE Apparel, LLC and Konfuzed, LLC are Delaware
limited liability companies.

BACKGROUND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
10
11
8.
12
13
14
9.
15
16
17
10.
18
19
response is required, Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form
20
a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 10, and therefore
21
deny those allegations.
22
11.
23
Complaint, except they admit that Brown is a multi-faceted entertainer and artist
24
who is known for his talents in multiple countries.
25
12.
Because, among other things, the source of the partial image appearing
26
in the First Amended Complaint is unknown and unconfirmed, Defendants deny the
27
allegations in paragraph 12 of the First Amended Complaint.
28
1
2
3
13.
Complaint.
14.
Complaint state legal conclusions, no response is required. Moreover, because,
among other things, the source of the partial images appearing in the First Amended
Complaint are blurred, unknown, and unconfirmed, to the extent any response is
required, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 14.
15.
Complaint state legal conclusions, no response is required. Moreover, because,
10
among other things, the source of the image appearing in the First Amended
11
Complaint is blurred, unknown, and unconfirmed, to the extent any response is
12
required, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 15.
13
16.
Because, among other things, the source of the partial images
14
appearing in the First Amended Complaint are blurred, unknown and unconfirmed,
15
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 16 of the First Amended Complaint,
16
except deny knowledge or information concerning the manner in which Plaintiff
17
claims to use Plaintiffs purported mark.
18
17.
19
20
response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 17.
21
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
22
Federal Trademark Infringement (15 U.S.C. 1114)
23
24
25
26
27
28
18.
Defendants repeat and reallege each and every response to paragraphs
1 through 17 as though fully set forth in this paragraph 18.

19.
Complaint and specifically deny that they have used Plaintiffs alleged trademark.
20.

3
response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 20, and
specifically deny that they have used Plaintiffs alleged trademark.
21.
22.
23.
10
11
12
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
13
Federal Unfair Competition (15 U.S.C. 1125(a))
14
15
16
24.

25.
17
18
19
26.
20
21
22
27.
23
24
25
28.
26
27
28
29.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
California Common Law Trademark Infringement
6
7
8
9
10
11
30.

31.

32.
12
13
14
33.
15
16
17
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
18
Statutory Unfair Competition (Cal. Bus. Prof. Code 17200)
19
20
21
34.

35.
22
23
24
36.
25
26
27
All allegations not expressly admitted are hereby denied.
28
Defendants
specifically deny that they have infringed any trademark or other rights Plaintiff
5
may have in the mark KONFUSED, and specifically deny that Plaintiff is entitled to
any of the relief sought whether monetary, injunctive, restitutionary, or otherwise.
Defendants request that this Court deny the relief requested by Plaintiff in his Ad
Damnum clause against Defendants, including each applicable subpart, and dismiss
the First Amended Complaint against Defendants with prejudice.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
6
7
8
Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the requested relief or to any

relief whatsoever.
DEFENSES
9
10
Further answering the First Amended Complaint, and without assuming any
11
burden of proof not otherwise required by law, Defendants plead, upon information
12
and belief or as the proofs may show, the following defenses.
13
First Defense
14
(Failure to State a Claim)
15
16
The First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
17
Second Defense
18
(Statute of Limitations)
19
20
Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of

limitations.
21
Third Defense
22
(Waiver and Laches)
23
24
Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of waiver or

laches.
25
Fourth Defense
26
(Estoppel)
27
28
Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of legal or

equitable estoppel.
6
Fifth Defense
(Personal Jurisdiction)
3
4
This Court lacks personal jurisdiction over CBE Merchandising, LLC, CBE
Apparel, LLC and KONFUZED, LLC.
Sixth Defense
(Standing)
7
8
Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, because he lacks standing to

bring one or more of the claims asserted.
Seventh Defense
10
(Noncompliance with USPTO Requirements)
11
Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, because he failed to comply
12
with the applicable registration requirements of the United States Patent and
13
Trademark Office (USPTO).
14
Eighth Defense
15
(Fraud on USPTO)
16
17
Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, because he committed fraud

on the USPTO.
18
Ninth Defense
19
(Unclean Hands)
20
21
Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean

hands and/or because Plaintiff has otherwise engaged in inequitable conduct.
22
Tenth Defense
23
(Other Actors)
24
25
Plaintiffs injuries, if any, were caused, in whole or in part, by the actions of

individuals or entities other than Defendants.
26
Eleventh Defense
27
(Fair Use)
28
Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of fair use.
7
Twelfth Defense
(Innocent Intent)
Defendants alleged conduct was done, if at all, with innocent intent and
without any belief that Defendants infringed upon or violated any of Plaintiffs
alleged rights.
Thirteenth Defense
(No Willful/Improper Conduct)
Defendants have not engaged in any willful or improper conduct.
Fourteenth Defense
10
(Acquiescence)
11
Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff had
12
knowledge of or acquiesced in all uses and exploitations of the mark or marks he
13
challenges in the First Amended Complaint.
14
Fifteenth Defense
15
(Consent/License)
16
17
Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, based on consent or license,

both expressed and implied.
18
Sixteenth Defense
19
(Ratification)
20
Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, based on Plaintiffs approval
21
or ratification of the acts or conduct of one or more third parties, including
22
Defendants.
23
Seventeenth Defense
24
(No Advertisement/Display/Promotion)
25
Defendants have not advertised, displayed, or promoted any products or
26
services by representing, suggesting, or intimating that Defendants, or any products
27
or services purportedly attributable to them, are connected or associated with
28
Plaintiff.
8
Eighteenth Defense
(No Representation)
Defendants have not represented, suggested, or intimated that any product or
service purportedly attributable to them originates from Plaintiff, or is the same as,
similar to, or in any way related to or affiliated with, Plaintiffs products or services.
Nineteenth Defense
(Invalid Trademark)
Plaintiffs trademark is invalid and unenforceable.
Twentieth Defense
10
(First Amendment)
11
12
Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the First Amendment of

the U.S. Constitution.
Reservation of Rights
13
14
Defendants expressly reserve all rights to assert any additional defenses that
15
may be revealed during the course of discovery. Defendants reserve the right to
16
assert any defense asserted by any other defendant that may be named or identified
17
in this action.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREFORE, Defendants request that this Court grant them the following
1
2
relief:
(1) Deny Plaintiff all relief sought in the First Amended Complaint;
(2) Dismiss the First Amended Complaint with prejudice;
(3) Award Defendants all of their costs, including attorneys fees; and
(4) Award Defendants all further relief that this Court finds just and proper.
7
8
DATED: January 20, 2017
Jonathan D. Davis
By:
10
/s/ Jonathan D. Davis

Jonathan D. Davis
11
Attorneys for Defendants Christopher

Brown, CBE Merchandising, LLC, CBE
12
13
14
15
17
Sandra A. Crawshaw-Sparks
Susan L. Gutierrez
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
18
By: __
16
/s/ Susan L. Gutierrez

Susan L. Gutierrez*
__
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
*I attest that all other signatories listed, and

on whose behalf the filing is submitted,
concur in this filings content and have
authorized this filing.
26
27
28
10
1
2
3
4
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Defendants
hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Jonathan D. Davis
By: __
/s/ Jonathan D. Davis _ __

Jonathan D. Davis
7
8

9
10
11
12
13
Sandra A. Crawshaw-Sparks
Susan L. Gutierrez
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
14
By:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
/s/ Susan L. Gutierrez

Susan L. Gutierrez*

*I attest that all other signatories listed, and
on whose behalf the filing is submitted,
concur in this filings content and have
authorized this filing.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11

Chris Brown

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Chris Brown

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Case 2:16-cv-02341-SJO-JC Document 33 Filed 01/20/17 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:137

Sandra A. Crawshaw-Sparks (SBN 291101)

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE KHAZRAEI, an individual,

Case No. 2:16-cv-02341-SJO (JCx)

ANSWER AND DEFENSES

Case 2:16-cv-02341-SJO-JC Document 33 Filed 01/20/17 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #:138

Defendants Christopher Brown, CBE Merchandising, LLC, CBE Apparel,

LLC, and Konfuzed, LLC (collectively, Defendants), by their undersigned

(the First Amended Complaint), state as follows:

Because the allegations in paragraph 1 of the First Amended

Complaint state legal conclusions, no response is required. To the extent any

response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 1, except admit

supplemental jurisdiction exists over his purported state law claims.

Because the allegations in paragraph 2 of the First Amended

Complaint state legal conclusions, no response is required. To the extent any

response is required, Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form

Because the allegations in paragraph 3 of the First Amended

Complaint state legal conclusions, no response is required. To the extent any

response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 3, except admit

that Brown resides in this judicial district.

Because the allegations in paragraph 4 of the First Amended

Complaint state legal conclusions, no response is required. To the extent any

response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 4, except admit

that Brown resides in this judicial district.

Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 5 of the First Amended

Complaint, and therefore deny those allegations.

Case 2:16-cv-02341-SJO-JC Document 33 Filed 01/20/17 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #:139

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 6 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admit that Brown resides in Los Angeles County.

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 7 of the First Amended

manager of Defendants CBE Merchandising, LLC, CBE Apparel, LLC, and

operated, and/or controlled by Defendant Brown. Defendants further admit that

limited liability companies.

Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 8 of the First Amended

Complaint, and therefore deny those allegations.

Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 9 of the First Amended

Complaint, and therefore deny those allegations.

Because the allegations in paragraph 10 of the First Amended

Complaint state legal conclusions, no response is required. To the extent any

response is required, Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form

deny those allegations.

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 11 of the First Amended

who is known for his talents in multiple countries.

allegations in paragraph 12 of the First Amended Complaint.

Case 2:16-cv-02341-SJO-JC Document 33 Filed 01/20/17 Page 4 of 12 Page ID #:140

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 13 of the First Amended

Because the allegations in paragraph 14 of the First Amended

Complaint state legal conclusions, no response is required. Moreover, because,

required, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 14.

Because the allegations in paragraph 15 of the First Amended

Complaint state legal conclusions, no response is required. Moreover, because,

Complaint is blurred, unknown, and unconfirmed, to the extent any response is

required, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 15.

Because, among other things, the source of the partial images

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 16 of the First Amended Complaint,

except deny knowledge or information concerning the manner in which Plaintiff

claims to use Plaintiffs purported mark.

Because the allegations in paragraph 17 of the First Amended

Complaint state legal conclusions, no response is required. To the extent any

response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 17.