AaLand Answer

USDC IN/ND case 2:23-cv-00039-JD-JPK document 16 filed 03/15/23 page 1 of 18
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
ALBERT S DIAMOND JEWELERS, INC. )

)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO.: 2:23-CV-39
)
AALAND DIAMOND JEWELERS, LLC )
)
Defendant. )
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Comes now Defendant, AaLand Diamond Jewelers, LLC, by counsel, David E. Woodward of
Woodward Law Offices, LLP and Mark A. Thiros of Thiros and Thiros, P.C., for its Answer to
Complaint, states as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This action arises from Defendant's willful infringement of Albert's' trademark rights,
to wrongfully profit from the substantial goodwill and widespread positive reputation that Albert's has
created and maintained for many years.
ANSWER: Defendant denies any and all allegations contained in rhetorical
paragraph one of Plaintiff's Complaint.
2. In 1905, Albert's opened its first diamond jewelry store. Starting in a tiny storefront in
East Chicago, over the last century it has grown into one of the largest and most successful family-
owned jewelers in the entire country. Albert's operates now in one location, in Schererville, Indiana.
ANSWER: Defendant is without personal knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in rhetorical
paragraph two of Plaintiff's Complaint and, therefore, denies same.

3. Over its many years of operating in Northwest Indiana, Albert's has generated
substantial goodwill throughout Northwest Indiana and the greater Chicagoland community. It's
television and print advertising is famous throughout the region.
paragraph three of Plaintiff's Complaint and, therefore, denies same.
4. Since at least 2002, Albert's has employed in connection with its sale of diamond and
other jewelry, what is now a widely recognized logo trademark. It uses this mark broadly, and displays
it proudly on print, television and other media advertising, marketing and advertising materials more
generally, and its Schererville storefront.
to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations, including the undefined
ide ec g i ed g ade a a d e hi a f b ad ,c ai ed i
he ica a ag a h f f P ai iff C ai a d, therefore denies same.
5. Fully aware of the fame and reputation of the Albert's logo trademark, Defendant
recently opened a new store, in a location within the region that Albert's has operated in for over a
century, but in a city in which Albert's has not previously maintained a storefront. Defendant did so,
moreover, all while prominently displaying on its new storefront a large sign consisting of a logo that,
with the exception of the business name "AaLand," appears substantially and confusingly similar to the
famous Albert's logo trademark.
ANSWER: Defendant admits that it recently opened a store in Crown Point,
Indiana, but denies any and all remaining allegations contained in rhetorical
paragraph five of Plaintiff's Complaint.
6. Defendant's intentional actions have led to actual consumer confusion. Upon learning
of this confusion, Albert's attempted, numerous times, to amicably resolve the situation and remedy the
2
N:\Personal Files\dkozlowski\Word\DEW\aaland\answer.complaint.docx
consumer confusion. Defendant has failed and refused, however, to cooperate or meaningfully engage
in discussions directed at resolving the dispute.
paragraph six of Plaintiff's Complaint.
7. As a result, Albert's brings this action for trademark infringement and unfair
competition under Federal and Indiana statutory and common law, to ensure that the consuming public
is not further confused, deceived or misled into purchasing Defendant's products thinking that they
originate from or are in some way sponsored by or affiliated with Albert's, and to enjoin Defendant from
further acts of willful infringement and unfair competition.
paragraph seven of Plaintiff's Complaint.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 39 of the
Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1121), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338, and has supplemental jurisdiction
over state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Albert's claims are predicated upon the Trademark
Act of 1946, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq., and substantial and related claims under the
statutory and common law of the State of Indiana.
ANSWER: The a ega i c ai ed i he ica a ag a h eigh f P ai iff
Complaint appear to be legal assertions which require no response Defendant denies
any and all allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph one of Plaintiff's
Complaint. Defendant admits that jurisdiction and venue properly lie.
9. Venue is properly founded in this judicial district and division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1391(b) and L.R. 3-1, because Defendant resides in this judicial district and division and is subject
to personal jurisdiction within this judicial district and division, and because events giving rise to these
claims occurred within this judicial district and division.
3
ANSWER: The a ega i c ai ed i he ica a ag a h i e f P ai iff
Complaint concerning venue are admitted.
PARTIES
10. Plaintiff Albert's is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Indiana, having
a principal place of business at 711 Main Street, Schererville, IN 46375. Albert's is a family-owned and
operated business that sells diamond jewelry and other jewelry products at its site in Schererville,
Indiana.
paragraph ten of Plaintiff's Complaint and, therefore, denies same.
11. On information and belief, Defendant AaLand Diamond Jewelers LLC is a limited
liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Indiana, having a principal place
of business at 10460 Broadway, Crown Point, IN 46307. Defendant sells diamond jewelry and other
jewelry products at its site in Crown Point, IN.
ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph
eleven of Plaintiff's Complaint.
ALBERT'S AND THE ALBERT'S TRADEMARK
12. Albert's has operated a diamond jewelry business in Northwest Indiana since 1905.
Over this 115+ year period of time, Albert's has become renowned for its unique branding in connection
with the sale of high-quality diamond jewelry and other jewelry products, as well as personalized
service related to those products. It has done so at a number of locations in the Northwest Indiana region,
including former locations in East Chicago and Merrillville, as well as its current Schererville location since 2002.
Throughout this lengthy period of time, Albert's has developed a strong reputation throughout Northwest
Indiana for its high-quality diamond and other jewelry products and personalized service related to those
products.
4
ANSWER: Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the
allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph twelve of Plaintiff's Complaint and,
therefore, denies same.
13. For many years, Albert's has offered for sale and sold its diamond jewelry and other
jewelry products under a common law logo trademark. It began using the current version of the mark in
2002 (the "Albert's Trademark"). The mark prominently incorporates a diamond drawing with sharp
edges and a multitude of internal sketch lines, all intended to evoke in a potential customer's mind a
precision cut, high-quality diamond. It's name "Albert's" appears above the term "Diamond Jewelers,"
and incorporates a distinct style of typeface/font - all of which have become extremely well-recognized
by consumers throughout Northwest Indiana and the greater Chicagoland area.
allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph thirteen of Plaintiff's Complaint and,
14. Below is a current exemplar of the Albert's logo trademark:
paragraph fourteen of Plaintiff's Complaint.
15. Albert's has extensively advertised and promoted the products offered in connection with
the Albert's Trademark, including in print, billboard, television, and other advertising venues. As a
result, Albert's has realized substantial success in its sales of products offered under the Albert's
Trademark.
5
paragraph fifteen of Plaintiff's Complaint.
16. As a result of its extensive marketing, advertising, and promotional efforts related to
the products that it offers in connection with its Albert's Trademark, consumers closely associate
high-quality diamond and other jewelry and personalized service with Albert's as the source of those
goods.
paragraph sixteen of Plaintiff's Complaint.
17. Through its long-time presence in Northwest Indiana, advertising and marketing, and
high-quality product offerings coupled with personalized service, Albert's has developed a loyal
customer following that spans well beyond Schererville. Albert's is regularly recognized and awarded as
a favorite diamond jeweler in Northwest Indiana.
allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph seventeen of Plaintiff's Complaint and,
18. Albert's has generated substantial goodwill and customer recognition in its Albert's
Trademark. Consumers immediately associate the Albert's Trademark with Albert's' diamond jewelry
business and products, and service. The Albert's Trademark has become well- known and famous,
particularly among purchasers of diamond and other jewelry products throughout Northwest Indiana
and beyond.
paragraph eighteen of Plaintiff's Complaint and, therefore, denies same.
19. Moreover, Albert's always endeavors to maintain its reputation for high quality diamond
jewelry and other jewelry products that customers have come to associate with the Albert's
6
Trademark. Albert's painstaking adherence to the highest quality standards has resulted in widespread
and favorable public acceptance among consumers for all products and services offered under the
Albert's Trademark.
allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph nineteen of Plaintiff's Complaint and,
20. As a result of Albert's advertising and promotion, adherence to the highest quality
standards, and sales success over the course of 115+ years in business, the Albert's Trademark is widely-
recognized in Northwest Indiana, immediately identifying Albert's as the exclusive source of the
products which are offered in connection with the Albert's Trademark, and signifying goodwill of
incalculable value.
allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph twenty of Plaintiff's Complaint and,
DEFENDANT'S UNLAWFUL ACTS
21. Defendant recently moved its single storefront from a location in Merrillville, Indiana
to a new location in Crown Point, Indiana. In connection with the opening of its new Crown Point store,
Defendant installed and continues to use and display exterior signage that incorporates a prominent
logo. Immediately below is a photo showing Defendant's storefront and its exterior sign:
7
ANSWER: Defendant admits the photograph shown in rhetorical paragraph
twenty-one is a true and accurate representation of Defe da e f a d
exterior sign, but denies any and all remaining allegations contained in rhetorical
paragraph twenty-one of Plaintiff's Complaint.
22. As one can see in the Defendant exterior sign, Defendant is using a logo that is
suspiciously similar to the Albert's Trademark. That logo (the "Infringing Mark") appears immediately
below:
DIAMOND JEWELERS
8
ANSWER: Defendant denies that Defendant is using a logo that is suspiciously
i ia A be ade a . Defe da f he de ie that its logo is an infringing
mark. Defendant admits that its logo is set forth in rhetorical paragraph twenty-two
of Plaintiff's Complaint.
23. Defendant's Infringing Mark as presented to the consuming public through signage, its
website, and other materials incorporates the prominent features of the Albert's Trademark. The
Infringing Mark utilizes a diamond sketch, that, just like the Albert's Trademark, incorporates internal
lines evoking prevision cuts and high quality. The Infringing Mark displays the business name above
the phrase "Diamond Jewelers," and utilizes a distinct typeface/font - all of which is suspiciously similar
to that used by Albert's in the Albert's Trademark.
paragraph twenty-three of Plaintiff's Complaint.
24. Defendant located its new storefront in Northwest Indiana, the same region that Albert's
has operated in for over 115 years. However, it chose a specific city within the Albert's Northwest
Indiana sales territory, namely Crown Point.
paragraph twenty-four of Plaintiff's Complaint.
25. As such, Defendant now offers to sell and sells diamond jewelry and other jewelry
products, using a logo that is confusingly similar to the Albert's Trademark, in the same region that
Albert's has been operating for 115+ years, all of which leading consumers to believe that Defendant's
storefront is either a new location for Albert's or somehow related to or sponsored by Albert's.
ANSWER: Defendant admits that it offers to sell and sells diamond jewelry and
other jewelry products, but denies any and all allegations contained in rhetorical
paragraph twenty-five of Plaintiff's Complaint.
9
26. Albert's competes in the marketplace for the same consumers as Defendant. In fact,
Defendant's actions in opening a new store in Crown Point, but using the Infringing Mark, have led to
actual consumer confusion. Albert's is currently aware of at least one Albert's customer who, after seeing
the new Defendant storefront, contacted Albert's and congratulated it on opening a new store. That
consumer was confused, of course, because Albert's has not opened a store in Crown Point, Indiana.
f a be ief a he h acc ac f he a ega i , A be c ee i
he a e ace f he a e c e a Defe da a d, he ef e de ie a e,
and denies any and all remaining allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph
twenty-six of Plaintiff's Complaint.
27. On October 13, 2022, Albert's' through counsel sent a letter to Defendant explaining that
Defendant's use of the Infringing Mark was in violation of Section 43(a)(l)(A) of the Lanham Act (15
U.S.C. § 1125) and Indiana state law. The letter noted the actual consumer confusion that Albert's was
aware of, and proposed an amicable resolution in which the Defendant would voluntarily stop using the
Infringing Mark on all signage, marketing materials, printed or electronic materials, and/or any and all
other references to Defendant's jewelry store. It offered to coordinate to ensure that any new mark to be
used by Defendant would be agreeable and avoid further conflict. A true and accurate copy of the letter
is attached as Exhibit A.
ANSWER: Defendant admits receiving a letter dated October 13, 2022 and
states the letter speaks for itself and, therefore, does not admit nor deny the allegation,
but if an answer is required, Defendant denies, and denies any and all remaining
allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph twenty-seven of Plaintiff's Complaint.
28. Defendant through counsel responded to the October 13 letter. In a letter dated
November 3, 2022, Defendant through counsel acknowledged Albert's' longtime and extensive
10
advertising, marketing and promotion. It further admitted that ''Albert's indeed is very well known
because of its marketing, television commercials and billboards, which are prominent throughout the
Northwest Indiana area." The letter curiously failed to acknowledge or respond to Albert's notice to it
of actual consumer confusion The letter conveyed the Defendant "is not willing to modify its logo."
ANSWER: Defendant admits through counsel it responded to the October 13,
2022 A be e e and states the document speaks for itself and, therefore, does not
admit nor deny the allegation, but if an answer is required, Defendant denies, and denies
any and all remaining allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph twenty-eight of
Plaintiff's Complaint.
29. In follow-on communications by electronic mail and telephone, Albert's through
counsel attempted to propose a further amicable resolution to change and discontinue use of the
Infringing Mark. Defendant has to date failed and refused to substantively reply to Albert's proposal.
paragraph twenty-nine of Plaintiff's Complaint and, therefore, denies same.
30. Defendant's continuing use of the Infringing Mark has caused, and is likely to continue
to cause confusion, mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Defendant's
business with Albert's and to damage Albert's' business relations with consumers and prospective
consumers.
paragraph thirty of Plaintiff's Complaint.
31. Defendant is aware of the strength and fame of the Albert's Trademark, and the goodwill
symbolized thereby, and that the Infringing Mark cannot be legally used by it as an indicator of source
or sponsorship for the goods it is offering. Accordingly, Defendant has been engaging in the above-
11
described unlawful activities knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for Albert's' rights
in the Albert's Trademark.
paragraph thirty-one of Plaintiff's Complaint.
COUNT I
Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, and Unfair

Competition (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
32. Albert's incorporates fully herein paragraphs 1 to 31 as set forth above.
ANSWER: Defendant incorporates herein, by reference, answers to rhetorical
paragraphs one through thirty-one of Defe da A e Complaint, as its answer
to rhetorical paragraph thirty-two, Count I, as if fully set out herein.
33. Albert's solely and exclusively owns the common law Albert's Trademark and all right,
title and interest therein.
paragraph thirty-three, Count I, of Plaintiff's Complaint and, therefore, denies same.
34. Defendant's use of the Infringing Mark in commerce and in connection with its products,
is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception: (i) as to the affiliation, connection or association
with Albert's, and (ii) as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of its products and services by
Albert's.
paragraph thirty-four, Count I, of Plaintiff's Complaint.
35. Defendant has acted with knowledge of the Albert's Trademark and with the deliberate
intention to unfairly benefit from the incalculable goodwill symbolized thereby.
paragraph thirty-five, Count I, of Plaintiff's Complaint.
12
36. Defendant's actions have continued despite being expressly notified of the Albert's
Trademark and Albert's' request that it cease and desist use thereof.
paragraph thirty-six, Count I, of Plaintiff's Complaint.
37. Defendant's acts therefore constitute willful trademark infringement, false designation
of origin, and unfair competition in violation of Section 43(a)(l)(A) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §
1125(a)(l)(A).
paragraph thirty-seven, Count I, of Plaintiff's Complaint.
38. Defendant has profited from its unlawful actions and it has been unjustly enriched to the
detriment of Albert's. Defendant's unlawful actions have caused Albert's monetary damage in an amount
presently unknown, but in an amount to be determined at trial.
paragraph thirty-eight, Count I, of Plaintiff's Complaint.
39. Upon information and belief, by its acts, Defendant has made and will realize substantial
profits and gain to which it is not entitled in law or equity.
paragraph thirty-nine, Count I, of Plaintiff's Complaint.
40. Defendant's intentional and willful conduct has caused, and will continue to cause,
Albert's irreparable harm unless enjoined, and Albert's has no adequate remedy at law.
paragraph forty, Count I, of Plaintiff's Complaint.
COUNT II
Trademark Infringement (Indiana Common Law; Ind. Code§ 24-2-1-13.5)
13
a ag a h e h gh f f Defe da A e C ai , a i a e
rhetorical paragraph forty-one, Count II, as if fully set out herein.
42. Albert's owns all right, title, and interest in and to the Albert's Trademark as aforesaid,
including all common law rights in such mark, and such mark is famous, distinctive and fanciful.
allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph forty-two, Count II, of Plaintiff's
Complaint and, therefore, denies same.
43. The aforesaid acts of Defendant constitute trademark infringement in violation of the
common law of the State of Indiana and Ind. Code§ 24-2-1-13.5.
paragraph forty-three, Count II, of Plaintiff's Complaint.
intention to unfairly benefit from the incalculable goodwill symbolized thereby.
paragraph forty-four, Count II, of Plaintiff's Complaint.
45. Defendant has profited from its unlawful actions and has been unjustly enriched to the
detriment of Albert's. Defendant's unlawful actions have caused Albert's monetary damage in an
amount presently unknown, but in an amount to be determined at trial.
paragraph forty-five, Count II, of Plaintiff's Complaint.
46. Upon information and belief, by its acts, Defendant has made and will realize
substantial profits and gain to which it is not entitled in law or equity.
paragraph forty-six, Count II, of Plaintiff's Complaint.
14
COUNT III
Common Law Unfair Competition
paragraphs one through forty- i f Defe da A e C ai , a i a e
to rhetorical paragraph forty-seven, Count III, as if fully set out herein.
48. Defendant's use of the Infringing Mark in commerce in connection with its goods and
services is intended to cause, has caused, and is likely to continue to cause confusion, mistake and
deception among the general consuming public and the trade as to whether the goods and services
bearing the Infringing Mark originate from, or are affiliated with, sponsored by, or endorsed by
Albert's.
paragraph forty-eight, Count III, of Plaintiff's Complaint and, therefore, denies
same.
49. Albert's competes with Defendant for a common pool of customers.
paragraph forty-nine, Count III, of Plaintiff's Complaint and, therefore, denies same.
intent to deceive the general consuming public and the industry, and to benefit unfairly from the
incalculable goodwill symbolized by the Albert's Trademark.
paragraph fifty, Count III, of Plaintiff's Complaint.
15
51. The aforesaid acts of Defendant constitute unfair competition in violation of the
common law of the State of Indiana.
paragraph fifty-one, Count III, of Plaintiff's Complaint.
52. Defendant has profited from its unlawful actions and has been unjustly enriched to the
detriment of Albert's. Defendant's unlawful actions have caused Albert's monetary damage in an
amount presently unknown, but in an amount to be determined at trial.
paragraph fifty-two, Count III, of Plaintiff's Complaint.
53. Upon information and belief, by its acts, Defendant has made and will realize
substantial profits and gain to which it is not entitled-in law or equity.
paragraph fifty-three, Count III, of Plaintiff's Complaint.
54. Defendant's intentional and willful conduct has caused, and will continue to cause,
Albert's irreparable harm unless enjoined, and Albert's has no adequate remedy at law.
paragraph fifty-four, Count III, of Plaintiff's Complaint.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Without admitting that they bear the burden of proof with respect to the following, such of which
c i e a ega fac a fai e f P ai iff c ai , Defe da a es and alleges the following
affi a i e defe e P ai iff C ai :
1. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
2. P ai iff c ai a e ba ed b he d c i e f ache ba ed P ai iff d e a d
prejudicial delay.
3. P ai iff c ai a e ba ed b he d c i e f ac ie ce ce ba ed P ai iff d ea d
prejudicial delay and consent.
16
4. P ai iff c ai a e ba ed b e e.
5. P ai iff c ai a e ba ed b ai e .
6. P ai iff c ai a e ba ed beca e he a ae f c i a a d i ca ab e f ega
protection under trademark or unfair competition law.
7. P ai iff c ai ee i e fi ed a a e f i iai .
8. P ai iff c ai d ec e he e ide ia e i a d e c i e igh
granted to AaLand Diamond Jewelers, LLC in its own state trademark registration.
9. P ai iff c ai i ba ed b fai e .
10. Defendant reserves the right to assert additional Affirmative Defenses as this matter
progresses and more facts are developed.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, AaLand Diamond Jewelers, LLC de he a ega i i P ai iff a e f e ief
and respectfully request that:
1. P ai iff Complaint be dismissed with prejudice;
2. P ai iff c ai f e ief be de ied;
3. Judgment be entered in favor of AaLand Diamond Jewelers, LLC;
4. Plaintiff takes nothing by way of its Complaint;
5. AaLand Diamond Jewelers, LLC be awarded its costs of this suit incurred in defense of this
action, including reasonable attorney fees; and
6. Defendant be awarded any other relief that this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ David E. Woodward

David E. Woodward
Attorney No. 15299-45
200 East 90th Drive
Merrillville, Indiana 46410
Tel. (219) 736-9990
[email protected]
Woodward Law Offices, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant
17
JURY DEMAND
Defendant, AaLand Diamond Jewelers, LLC, by counsel, David E. Woodward, respectfully
requests trial by jury of all issues herein.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ David E. Woodward

David E. Woodward
200 East 90th Drive
Tel. (219) 736-9990
[email protected]
Woodward Law Offices, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant
By: /s Mark A. Thiros

Mark A. Thiros
200 East 90th Drive
Tel. (219) 769-1600
[email protected]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the undersigned did, this day, electronically filed the foregoing
instrument with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of such filing to
all parties of record herein.
Dated this 15th day of March, 2023.
/s/David E. Woodward
David E. Woodward
18

AaLand Answer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AaLand Answer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AaLand Answer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USDC IN/ND case 2:23-cv-00039-JD-JPK document 16 filed 03/15/23 page 1 of 18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ALBERT S DIAMOND JEWELERS, INC. )

Complaint, states as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

created and maintained for many years.

ANSWER: Defendant denies any and all allegations contained in rhetorical

paragraph one of Plaintiff's Complaint.

ANSWER: Defendant is without personal knowledge or information sufficient

to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in rhetorical

paragraph two of Plaintiff's Complaint and, therefore, denies same.

television and print advertising is famous throughout the region.

ANSWER: Defendant is without personal knowledge or information sufficient

to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in rhetorical

paragraph three of Plaintiff's Complaint and, therefore, denies same.

generally, and its Schererville storefront.

ANSWER: Defendant is without personal knowledge or information sufficient

he ica a ag a h f f P ai iff C ai a d, therefore denies same.

famous Albert's logo trademark.

ANSWER: Defendant admits that it recently opened a store in Crown Point,

paragraph five of Plaintiff's Complaint.

in discussions directed at resolving the dispute.

ANSWER: Defendant denies any and all allegations contained in rhetorical

paragraph six of Plaintiff's Complaint.

further acts of willful infringement and unfair competition.

ANSWER: Defendant denies any and all allegations contained in rhetorical

paragraph seven of Plaintiff's Complaint.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

statutory and common law of the State of Indiana.

ANSWER: The a ega i c ai ed i he ica a ag a h eigh f P ai iff

Complaint appear to be legal assertions which require no response Defendant denies

any and all allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph one of Plaintiff's

Complaint. Defendant admits that jurisdiction and venue properly lie.

claims occurred within this judicial district and division.

ANSWER: The a ega i c ai ed i he ica a ag a h i e f P ai iff

Complaint concerning venue are admitted.

ANSWER: Defendant is without personal knowledge or information sufficient

to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in rhetorical

paragraph ten of Plaintiff's Complaint and, therefore, denies same.

jewelry products at its site in Crown Point, IN.

ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph

eleven of Plaintiff's Complaint.

ALBERT'S AND THE ALBERT'S TRADEMARK

ANSWER: Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph twelve of Plaintiff's Complaint and,

therefore, denies same.

by consumers throughout Northwest Indiana and the greater Chicagoland area.

ANSWER: Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph thirteen of Plaintiff's Complaint and,

therefore, denies same.

14. Below is a current exemplar of the Albert's logo trademark:

ANSWER: Defendant denies any and all allegations contained in rhetorical

paragraph fourteen of Plaintiff's Complaint.

ANSWER: Defendant denies any and all allegations contained in rhetorical

paragraph fifteen of Plaintiff's Complaint.

ANSWER: Defendant denies any and all allegations contained in rhetorical

paragraph sixteen of Plaintiff's Complaint.

a favorite diamond jeweler in Northwest Indiana.

ANSWER: Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the