NAFC v. Scientology: Answer and Counterclaim by Narconon Oklahoma

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

1. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FORENSIC )
COUNSELORS, INC., a Nevada Non-Profit )
Corporation; et al. )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No.: 6:14-cv-00187-RAW
)
1. NARCONON INTERNATIONAL, a California )
Non-Profit Corporation; et al. )
)
Defendants. )

ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM
OF NARCONON OF OKLAHOMA, INC.

The Defendant, Narconon of Oklahoma, Inc. (NNOK) hereby answers the
Complaint of Plaintiffs, National Association of Forensic Counselors, Inc. (hereinafter
NAFC) and American Academy of Certified Forensic Counselors, Inc. d/b/a American
College of Certified Forensic Counselors (hereinafter ACCFC), and counterclaims
against NAFC and ACCFC.
ANSWER
COMES NOW NNOK and for its Answer to the Complaint of NAFC and
ACCFC, does generally and specifically deny each and every allegation contained in the
Plaintiffs' Complaint except those admitted below:
PARTI ES J URISDI CTION AND VENUE
6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 302 Filed in ED/OK on 08/01/14 Page 1 of 72

2
1. NNOK is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations
contained in paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs Complaint and therefore denies them.
2. NNOK is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations
3. The allegations contained in paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
unrelated to and require no answer from NNOK. To the extent that an answer is required,
NNOK is without sufficient information to admit or deny those allegations and therefore
denies them.
4. NNOK admits the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs
Complaint.
NNOK is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny those allegations and therefore
denies them.
denies them.

3
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.

4
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.

5
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.

6
is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny those allegations and therefore denies
them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.

7
denies them.
denies them.
upon information and belief, NNOK admits those allegations.
denies them.

8
upon information and belief, NNOK denies those allegations.
upon information and belief, upon information and belief, NNOK denies those
allegations.

9
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.

10
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.

11
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.

12
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.

13
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.

14
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.

15
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.

16
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.

17
denies them.
85. NNOK denies the Plaintiffs allegations giving rise to claims under 15
U.S.C 1116 and 1121, 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338(a), and 1367(a), but admits that the
Court would have subject matter jurisdiction over claims made against this Defendant,
only, as alleged in paragraph 85 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
86. NNOK admits this Court has personal jurisdiction over it but is without
sufficient information to admit or deny whether the Court has jurisdiction over any of the
co-Defendants identified in paragraph 86 of Plaintiffs Complaint and therefore denies
those allegations. NNOK specifically denies the allegations contained in the last two
sentences of paragraph 86 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Further, Plaintiffs' Complaint
improperly contains separate unrelated counts, causes of action and/or claims against
other Defendants which should be severed from any action against NNOK.
87. NNOK denies the Plaintiffs allegations of any acts or omissions giving
rise to Plaintiffs claims but admits that those allegations allow this District to be a proper
venue with respect to claims against this Defendant, only, as alleged in paragraph 87 of
Plaintiffs Complaint.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND ALLEGATI ONS
NAFC Backgrounds and Trademarks
88. The allegations contained in paragraph 88 of Plaintiffs Complaint amount
to a statement or conclusion to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer

18
is required, NNOKis without sufficient information to admit or deny those allegations
and therefore denies them.
is required, NNOK is without sufficient information to admit or deny those allegations
90. The allegations contained in paragraph 90 and 90 a. through 90 f. of
Plaintiffs Complaint amount to statements or conclusions to which no answers are
required. To the extent that answers are required, NNOK is without sufficient
information to admit or deny those allegations and therefore denies them.
to a self-serving statement or conclusion to which no answer is required. To the extent
that an answer is required, NNOK is without sufficient information to admit or deny
those allegations and therefore denies them.

19
is required, upon information and belief, NNOK generally admits that individuals must
meet certain requirements in order to be certified by or through NAFC as alleged in
paragraph in paragraph 96 of Plaintiffs Complaint. To the extent that the allegations
contained in paragraph 96 go beyond the generality of the need for individuals to meet
certain requirements in order to be certified by or through NAFC, NNOK is without
sufficient information to admit or deny those allegations and therefore denies them.

20
100. The allegations contained in paragraph 100 of Plaintiffs Complaint
amount to a statement or conclusion to which no answer is required. To the extent that an
answer is required, NNOK, upon information and belief, admits the allegations contained
in paragraph 100 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
101. The allegations contained in paragraph 101 and 101 a. and b. of Plaintiffs
Complaint amount to statements or conclusions to which no answers are required. To the
extent that answers are required, NNOK, upon information and belief, denies the
allegations contained in paragraph 101 and 101 a. and b. of Plaintiffs Complaint.
answer is required, NNOK is without sufficient information to admit or deny those
allegations and therefore denies them.

21
answer is required, NNOK, upon information and belief, denies those allegations.
107. The allegations contained in paragraph 107 and 107 a. through h. of
Plaintiffs Complaint amount to statements or conclusions to which no answers are
required. To the extent that answers are required, NNOK is without sufficient
109. NNOK is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations

22
Defendants Misuse of NAFC Mark, Certifications and Logos
110. NNOKs answers in paragraphs 1 through 109 above are incorporated
herein as if fully repeated.
111. The allegations contained in paragraph 111 of Plaintiffs Complaint which
impose a definition of an alleged Narconon Network are denied. The remaining
allegations contained in paragraph 111 are denied, and NNOK specifically denies that
drug treatment utilizing the technology of L. Ron Hubbard is a fundraising and
recruitment program of the Defendant Church of Scientology.
contained in paragraph 112 of Plaintiffs' Complaint insofar as they relate to other
Defendants but admits that it is a drug treatment and rehabilitation center but denies that
it is part of the Narconon Network as defined by Plaintiffs and further denies that it is
run by Narconon International.
113. NNOK denies the allegations of paragraph 113 of Plaintiffs Complaint
insofar as they related to Pita Group, Inc. Dena Goad, and Kent McGregor. NNOK
specifically denies the implication in paragraph 113 that Pita Group, Inc., Dena Goad and
Kent McGregor operate websites for the sole purpose of referring business to NNOK.
NNOK is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph
113 as they relate to the other entities and/or individuals identified and therefore denies
them.
amount to a statement or conclusion about other Defendants and require no answer by

23
NNOK. To the extent that an answer is required, NNOK is without sufficient
115. NNOK denies the allegations contained in paragraph 115 and specifically
denies the existence of and participation in any alleged common scheme with other
Defendants to promote the Narconon Network through the misuse of NAFC logos,
trademarks and certifications.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.

24
120. NNOK denies the allegations contained in paragraph 120 of Plaintiffs
Complaint, as framed. NNOK affirmatively states that references to NAFC credentials
by listing certifications after Defendants names were voluntarily removed by this
Defendant following NAFCs alleged revocation in March of 2013 for reasons that were
both arbitrary and capricious and in violation of NAFCs own written policies and
procedures (the Alleged NAFC Revocation). If any references to NAFC credentials or
certifications were made after the Alleged NAFC Revocation, alleged suspension, alleged
expiration or alleged lack of certification, such references were inadvertent and not
willful or intentional conduct violating any law. This Defendant affirmatively alleges
that good faith efforts were taken to remove references to NAFC credentials and
certifications following the Alleged NAFC Revocation, and efforts to remove any that
may still exist and can be accessed continue.
amount to a statement or conclusion as to the individual Defendants and are therefore
unrelated to and require no answer from NNOK. To the extent that the allegations of
paragraph 121 of Plaintiffs' Complaint relate to NNOK and require an answer from
NNOK, those allegations are denied.
amount to a statement or conclusion as to Defendants other than NNOK and that are
therefore unrelated to and require no answer from NNOK. To the extent that the
allegations of paragraph 122 of Plaintiffs' Complaint relate to NNOK and require an
answer from NNOK, those allegations are denied, as framed. NNOK affirmatively
alleges that any of its IRS 990 Tax Forms speak for themselves.

25
answer from NNOK, those allegations are denied. This Defendant affirmatively alleges
that good faith efforts were taken to remove any references to NAFC credentials,
certifications or boards following the Alleged NAFC Revocation, and efforts to remove
any that may still exist and can be accessed continue.

26
Complaint. This Defendant affirmatively alleges that good faith efforts were taken to
remove any references to NAFC certifications or boards following the Alleged NAFC
Revocation, and efforts to remove any that may still exist and can be accessed continue.
Complaint, as framed, and affirmatively alleges that references, if any, to NAFC
credentials or certifications after the Alleged NAFC Revocation were inadvertent and not
willful or intentional conduct in violation of any law. Further, this Defendant
affirmatively alleges that good faith efforts were taken to remove references to any
NAFC credentials and certifications following the Alleged NAFC Revocation, and efforts
to remove any that may still exist and can be accessed continue.
willful or intentional violating any law. Further, this Defendant affirmatively alleges that
good faith efforts were taken to remove references to any NAFC credentials and
certifications following the Alleged NAFC Revocation, and efforts to remove any that
may still exist and can be accessed continue.
denied by NNOK. Further, this Defendant affirmatively alleges that good faith efforts

27
were taken to remove references to any NAFC credentials and certifications following the
Alleged NAFC Revocation, and efforts to remove any that may still exist and can be
accessed continue.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
amount to a statement or conclusion or are unrelated to and require no answer from
information to admit or deny those allegations and must therefore deny them.

28
denies them. Further, NNOK affirmatively states that Plaintiffs' Complaint improperly
contains separate unrelated counts, causes of action
NNOK. To the extent that an answer is required, upon information and belief, NNOK
denies those allegations.
willful or intentional conduct violating any law. Further, this Defendant affirmatively
alleges that good faith efforts were taken to remove references to any NAFC credentials
and certifications following the Alleged NAFC Revocation, and efforts to remove any
that may still exist and can be accessed continue.
upon information and belief, NNOK denies those allegations, as framed, and
affirmatively alleges that references, if any, to NAFC credentials or certifications after
the Alleged NAFC Revocation were inadvertent and not willful or intentional conduct

29
violating any law. Further, this Defendant affirmatively alleges that good faith efforts
were taken to remove references to any NAFC credentials and certifications following the
Alleged NAFC Revocation, and efforts to remove any that may still exist and can be
accessed continue.
amount are unrelated to and require no answer from NNOK. To the extent that an answer
is required, upon information and belief, NNOK denies those allegations, as framed, and
violating any law. This Defendant further affirmatively alleges that good faith efforts
were taken to remove any references to NAFC certifications following the Alleged
NAFC Revocation, and efforts to remove any that may still exist and can be accessed
continue.
upon information and belief, denies those allegations, as framed, and affirmatively
alleges that references, if any, to NAFC credentials or certifications after the Alleged
NAFC Revocation were inadvertent and not willful or intentional conduct violating any
law. Further, this Defendant affirmatively alleges that good faith efforts were taken to
remove references to any NAFC credentials and certifications following the Alleged
continue.

30
denies them.
Complaint, as framed, and affirmatively alleges that any reference to CCDC certification
following Alleged NAFC Revocation was inadvertent and not willful or intentional
conduct violating any law. Further, this Defendant affirmatively alleges that good faith
efforts were taken to remove any references to NAFC certifications following the Alleged
NAFC Revocation, and continues its efforts to remove any that may still exist and can be
accessed.
denies them.
denies them, and affirmatively alleges that any use of the CCDC certification following
the Alleged NAFC Revocation was inadvertent and not willful or intentional conduct

31
accessed.
efforts were taken to remove references to NAFC certifications following the Alleged
continue.
continue.

32
continue.
continue.
continue.
NNOK denies those allegations, as framed, and affirmatively alleges that any reference to
the CCDC certification following the Alleged NAFC Revocation was inadvertent and not
willful or intentional conduct violating any law. This Defendant further affirmatively
alleges that good faith efforts were taken to remove references to NAFC certifications

33
following the Alleged NAFC Revocation, and efforts to remove any that may still exist
and can be accessed continue.
is required, upon information and belief, NNOK denies those allegations, as framed, and

34
accessed.
continue.
the CCDC certification following the Alleged NAFC Revocation was inadvertent and

35
continue.
continue.

36
is required, upon information and belief, NNOK denies those allegations, as framed.
This Defendant affirmatively alleges that any reference to the CCDC certification
following the Alleged NAFC Revocation was inadvertent and not willful or intentional
conduct violating any law. This Defendant further affirmatively alleges that good faith
continue.
continue.
This Defendant affirmatively alleges that any reference to CCDC certification following
the Alleged NAFC Revocation was inadvertent and not willful or intentional conduct

37
continue.
continue.
continue.

38
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
NNOK admits there was a link to NNOK on the site referenced in the allegations of
paragraph 167. NNOK states the site/link has been taken down. Further, this Defendant
affirmatively alleges that good faith efforts were taken to remove any references to
NAFC certifications following the Alleged NAFC Revocation, and efforts to remove any
that may still exist and can be accessed continue. This Defendant affirmatively alleges
that any reference to NAFC credentials or certifications following the Alleged NAFC
Revocation was inadvertent and not willful or intentional conduct violating any law.

39
information to admit or deny those allegations and must therefore deny them. Further,
this Defendant affirmatively alleges that good faith efforts were taken to remove any
references to NAFC certifications following the Alleged NAFC Revocation, and efforts
to remove any that may still exist and can be accessed continue.
Complaint, to the extent they allege that NNOK owns and operates the website
referenced in those allegations. NNOK is without sufficient information to admit or deny
the remaining allegations of paragraph 169 and therefore denies them. Further, this
Defendant affirmatively alleges that good faith efforts were taken to remove any
references to NAFC credentials and certifications following the Alleged NAFC
denies them.
denies them.

40
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.

41
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.

42
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.

43
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.

44
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.

45
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.

46
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.

47
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.

48
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.

49
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.

50
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
denies them.
NNOK states that admitting or denying the allegations contained in paragraph 232 may
be a violation of certain Oklahoma and federal law, specifically, 43A O.S. 1-109; Health

51
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA); 42 U.S.C. 290dd-2;
and 42 C.F.R., Part 243A O.S. 1-109; Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act of 1996 (HIPAA); 42 U.S.C. 290dd-2; and 42 C.F.R., Part 2. Therefore, until a
protective order preserving the confidentiality of certain information is entered, NNOK
can neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in paragraph 232 of Plaintiffs
Complaint.
upon information and belief, NNOK admits the allegations contained in paragraph 233 of
Plaintiffs Complaint but denies the implication that Goads websites are operated for the
sole purpose of referring potential patients to NNOK.
denies them.
denies them.

52
NNOK states that admitting or denying the allegations contained in paragraph 237 may
be a violation of certain privacy laws. Therefore, until a protective order preserving the
confidentiality of certain information is entered, NNOK can neither admit nor deny the
allegations contained in paragraph 237 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
238. Upon information and belief, NNOK denies the allegations contained in
paragraph 238 of Plaintiffs Complaint.

53
NNOK. To the extent that an answer is required, NNOK denies those allegations, as
framed, and specifically denies Plaintiffs' definition of the Narconon Network and
alleged in their Complaint.

54
NNOK. To the extent that an answer is required, NNOK denies those allegations, as
framed, and specifically denies that it is strictly controlled by RTC and ABLE.
contained in paragraph 248 and subparagraphs 248a through 248f of Plaintiffs
Complaint and therefore denies them, In further support of its denial of the allegations in
paragraph 248 and subparagraphs 248a through 248f, NNOK never received the satellite
transmission described in those allegations.
Complaint.
contained in paragraph 250 of Plaintiffs Complaint and must therefore deny them.
answer is required, NNOK admits lawsuits have been filed against it but denies that those
lawsuits have any merit. NNOK is without sufficient information to admit or deny the
allegations of paragraph 251 as they may relate to other Defendants and therefore denies
them.
NNOK is without sufficient information to admit or deny those allegations and must
therefore deny them.

55
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
answer is required, NNOK denies those allegations. NNOK specifically denies the
existence of any schemes and misuse of the certifications, logos and links as alleged in
paragraph 257 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
amount to a self-serving statement or conclusion and require no answer from NNOK. To
the extent that an answer is required, NNOK denies those allegations.
Complaint and demand strict proof of any and all damages claimed, if any.
CAUSES OF ACTI ON
I. FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

56
260. NNOK incorporates herein as if fully repeated its answers above to
paragraphs 1 through 259 of Plaintiffs' Complaint.
261. NNOK denies the allegations in paragraph 261 of Plaintiffs' Complaint
insofar as it relates to its websites and publications. NNOK is without sufficient
information to admit or deny those allegations as they may relate to other Defendants and
therefore denies them. This Defendant further affirmatively alleges that good faith
efforts were taken to remove any references to NAFC credentials and certifications
and can be accessed continue. Further, this Defendant affirmatively alleges that any
reference to NAFC credentials or certifications following the Alleged NAFC Revocation
was inadvertent and not willful or intentional conduct violating any law. However,
NNOK denies the implication of the allegations made in paragraph 261 of Plaintiffs'
Complaint that authorization from Plaintiffs was needed or required for NNOK to make
references to NAFC credentials or certifications given to individuals on its websites or in
its publications following the Alleged NAFC Revocation. NNOK affirmatively alleges
that references to NAFC credentials and certifications of individuals who were
credentialed or certified by NAFC were fair uses for which no liability attaches to
NNOK. Further, NNOK affirmatively alleges that NAFCs mark NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF FORENSIC COUNSELORS, Registration No. 3585933, registered
under section 2(f) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(f), is unprotected and
unenforceable, including against this Defendant, because the mark is descriptive, and it
has not acquired secondary meaning in the minds of the public by becoming distinctive of
NAFCs services in commerce; that NAFCs NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

57
FORENSIC COUNSELORS registration, Reg. No. 3585933, is invalid, as the mark is
merely descriptive and it has not acquired distinctiveness, and, therefore, said registration
should be cancelled pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1119; and that Plaintiffs' infringement claims
are barred in whole or in part, inter alia, because Plaintiffs alleged trademarks and or
certification marks (variously referred to throughout their Complaint as Mark, Logo and
Certifications or NAFC's logos, trademarks, and certifications or NAFC's
Certifications, Marks and Logos or Mark, Certifications and Logo) are not entitled to
any protection and are unenforceable because they are merely descriptive terms that have
not acquired distinctiveness, i.e., secondary meaning the minds of the public by becoming
distinctive of NAFCs services in commerce.
262. NNOK denies the allegations contained in paragraph 262 of Plaintiffs'
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint and demands strict proof of damages, if any, claimed by Plaintiffs.
Complaint.

58
Complaint.
Complaint.
II. COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.

59
Complaint.
Complaint and demands strict proof of all damages claimed by Plaintiffs.
III. FEDERAL INFRINGEMENT PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. 1125
paragraphs 1 through 277of Plaintiffs' Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint and demands strict proof of all damages claimed by Plaintiffs.
Complaint, and specifically denies any willful or intentional conduct justifying damages
under any law.
IV. VIOLATION OF RIGHT OF PUBLICITY PURSUANT TO 12 O.S. 1449

60
Complaint.
286. NNOK denies the implication of the allegations contained in paragraph
286 of Plaintiffs' Complaint that Plaintiffs' prior consent was necessary, which it was
not. To the extent that consent may have been necessary, which is denied, any reference
to NAFC credentials or certifications after the Alleged NAFC Revocation was
inadvertent and not willful or intentional conduct violating any law.
Complaint, and demands strict proof of any damages claimed by Plaintiffs.
Complaint. NNOK affirmatively alleges that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for
violation of 12 O.S. 1449 for the reason that Plaintiffs are not individuals entitled to
relief under that statute.
Complaint, and demands strict proof of any damages claimed by Plaintiffs.
Complaint, and specifically denies any conduct justifying an award of punitive damages.
Complaint.

61
V. CIVIL CONSPIRACY
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint and demands strict proof of all harm and loss claimed by Plaintiffs.
V. REQUEST FOR INJUNCTION
Complaint. NNOK affirmatively alleges that good faith efforts were taken to remove any
To the extent that Plaintiffs' allegations relate to NNOK, injunctive relief is not necessary
since NNOK agrees to remove or delete any references to NAFC's credentials and
certifications appearing on any of its websites or in its publications, thus rendering moot

62
Plaintiffs alleged risk of further damages, although NNOK specifically denies such risk
actually exists.
Complaint. NNOK affirmatively alleges that good faith efforts were taken to remove any
To the extent that Plaintiffs' allegations relate to NNOK, a command to refrain is not
necessary since NNOK agrees to remove or delete any references to NAFC's credentials
and certifications appearing on any of its websites or in its publications, thus rendering
moot Plaintiffs' need for injunctive relief, although NNOK specifically denies any such
need actually exists.
Complaint and specifically denies that Plaintiffs have or will suffer irreparable harm.
Complaint and specifically denies Plaintiffs' need for any preliminary injunction during
the pendency of this litigation.
Complaint and specifically denies Plaintiffs' need for a permanent injunction to prevent
use of NAFC Certifications and Logos.
303. NNOK denies the allegations contained in paragraph 303 and 303a
through 303d of Plaintiffs' Complaint.

63
Complaint and specifically denies Plaintiffs entitlement to injunctive relief pursuant to 15
U.S.C. 1116(a).
CONCLUSION
NNOK denies the allegations contained in the Conclusion paragraph of Plaintiffs
Complaint and specifically denies Plaintiffs' entitlement to any of the damages and relief
prayed for therein.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
(DEFENSES AND AVOIDANCES)

1. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted and should therefore be dismissed. In support, this Defendant incorporates herein
as if fully repeated, all defenses, arguments and authorities contained in the Motion to
Dismiss [DKT 287] and Brief of Defendants Pita Group, Inc., Gary Smith, Derry
Hallmark, Janet Watkins, Tom Widmann, Vicki Smith, Michael Otto, Michael J.
Gosselin, Kathy Gosselin, Michael George, Dena G. Goad, and Michael St. Amand In
Support of Their Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can
Be Granted [DKT 288], (collectively, the Oklahoma-Based Defendants Motion to
Dismiss and Brief in Support). Specifically, this Defendant incorporates herein as if
fully repeated all defenses, arguments and authorities contained in the following
Propositions, including sub-propositions, from the Oklahoma-Based Defendants Motion
to Dismiss and Brief in Support: PROPOSITION I. The Complaint Does Not State a
Claim Against Moving Defendants for Trademark Infringement Under the Lanham Act

64
or the Common Law (Counts I-III); PROPOSITION II. Plaintiffs' Cause of Action for
"Federal Infringement Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1125" Fails to the Extent It Purports to
Allege False Advertising under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(B); PROPOSITION III. The
Complaint Fails to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted to Either Plaintiff
for Violation of 12 O.S. 1449; and, PROPOSTION IV. The Complaints allegations
entitled Civil Conspiracy do not state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
2. NAFCs mark NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FORENSIC
COUNSELORS, Registration No. 3585933, registered under section 2(f) of the Lanham
Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(f) , is unprotected and unenforceable, including against Defendant,
because the mark is merely descriptive, and it has not acquired secondary meaning in the
minds of the public by becoming distinctive of NAFCs services in commerce.
3. NAFCs NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FORENSIC COUNSELORS
registration, Reg. No. 3585933, is invalid, as the mark is merely descriptive and it has not
acquired distinctiveness, and, therefore, said registration should be cancelled pursuant to
15 U.S.C. 1119.
4. Plaintiffs' infringement claims are barred in whole or in part because
Plaintiffs alleged trademarks and/or certification marks (variously referred to throughout
their Complaint as Mark, Logo and Certifications or NAFC's logos, trademarks, and
certifications or NAFC's Certifications, Marks and Logos or Mark, Certifications and
Logo) are not entitled to any protection and are unenforceable because they are merely
descriptive terms that have not acquired distinctiveness, i.e., secondary meaning in the
minds of the public by becoming distinctive of NAFCs services in commerce.

65
5. Plaintiffs' claims for damages, if any, are limited by Defendants' innocent
intent.
6. Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of estoppel.
7. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
8. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
9. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of waiver.
10. Plaintiffs claims are barred due to an express or implied license.
11. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of laches.
12. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of acquiescence.
13. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the misrepresentations of material facts.
14. Plaintiffs claims should be dismissed based upon Plaintiffs failure to
plead with the requisite particularity to inform this Defendant of the claims against it.
15. Plaintiffs claims are barred as illegal restraints of trade.
16. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiffs have
failed to mitigate their claim through arbitration, good faith and fair dealing, honest
business practices, clear and reasonable communication and other means.
17. Plaintiffs claims are barred by Plaintiffs negligence, both ordinary and
gross.

66
18. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the conduct of third persons over whom
this Defendant had no control.
19. Any award of exemplary damages in favor of Plaintiffs and against
NNOK would be unconstitutional.
20. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of fair use.
21. Plaintiffs claim for injunctive relief fails because Plaintiffs have an
adequate remedy at law.
22. Plaintiffs claim for injunctive relief fails because no immediate and
irreparable harm to Plaintiffs would exist if injunctive relief is not granted.
23. Plaintiffs claim for injunctive relief fails because they have no likelihood
of success on the merits.
24. Plaintiffs claims are barred by their malicious prosecution and abuse of
process.
25. Plaintiffs bad faith bars their claims.
26. Plaintiffs' Complaint improperly contains separate unrelated counts,
causes of action and/or claims against other Defendants which should dismissed or
severed from any action against NNOK.
NNOK reserves the right to amend this Answer to include further defenses as
discovery progresses and as allowed by the Court.

67
WHEREFORE, Narconon of Oklahoma, Inc., having answered Plaintiffs'
Complaint, prays judgment in its favor and that it be allowed to go hence with all costs
incurred, including reasonable attorneys' fees, and for such other relief as the Court
deems just and proper.
COUNTERCLAIM
COMES NOW, the Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff, Narconon of
Oklahoma, Inc. (hereinafter NNOK), and for its Counterclaim against the Plaintiffs and
Counterclaim Defendants, National Association of Forensic Counselors, Inc. (hereinafter
NAFC) and American Academy of Certified Forensic Counselors, Inc. d/b/a American
College of Certified Forensic Counselors (hereinafter ACCFC), alleges and states:
1. NNOK incorporates herein as if fully repeated its above answers and
affirmative defenses to paragraphs 1 through 304 of NAFCs and ACCFCs Complaint.
2. This Court has jurisdiction over this Counterclaim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1331, 1338, and 15 U.S.C. 1119, which in any action involving a registered mark
grants this Court the power determine the right to registration and order cancelation of a
registration. This Court also has jurisdiction based upon 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202.
3. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1391.
4. NAFC and ACCFC have filed their Complaint against NNOK, and other
Defendants, for, inter alia, alleged trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, 15
U.S.C. 1114, of NAFCs alleged mark NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FORENSIC
COUNSELORS, Registration No. 3585933, registered in the United States Patent and

68
Trademark Office (USPTO) under section 2(f) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(f)
(the Mark).
5. The Mark is unprotected and unenforceable, including against Defendant,
because the Mark is merely descriptive, and it has not acquired distinctiveness, i.e.,
secondary meaning in the minds of the public by becoming distinctive of NAFCs
services in commerce.
6. The registration of the Mark is invalid, as the Mark is merely descriptive
and it has not acquired distinctiveness, and, therefore, said registration should be
cancelled pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1119.
7. Based upon allegations and claims asserted in the NAFC and ACCFC
Complaint and NNOKs Answer and Affirmative Defenses, an actual controversy has
arisen and now exists between NNOK and NAFC and ACCFC as to whether the Mark
should be cancelled, and NNOK seeks a determination and declaration from the Court
that NAFCs registration of the Mark be cancelled pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1119.
WHEREFORE, NNOK prays judgment in its favor and against NAFC and
ACCFC for the following determinations and declarations by the Court: that NAFC has
no right to registration of the Mark; that the Mark is invalid, as it is merely descriptive
and has not acquired distinctiveness, and registration of the Mark should be cancelled; for
an award of all costs, including reasonable attorneys fees, to NNOK; and for such other
relief as the Court deems just, equitable and proper.


69
Respectfully submitted,

s/ Wm. Gregory James
M. David Riggs, OBA #7583
Donald M. Bingham, OBA #794
Wm. Gregory James, OBA #4620
RIGGS, ABNEY, NEAL TURPEN,
ORBISON & LEWIS, PC
502 West 6
th
Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119
(918) 587-3161
(918) 587-9708 Fax
driggs@riggsabney.com
don_bingham@riggsabney.com
gjames@riggsabney.com

ATTORNEYS FOR OKLAHOMA-BASED
DEFENDANTS


70

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 1, 2014, I electronically transmitted the attached
document to the Clerk of Court using the ECF System for filing. Based on the records
currently on file, the Clerk of Court will transmit a Notice of Electronic Filing to the
following ECF registrants:

David R. Keesling, Esq. David@KLGattorneys.com
Heidi Shadid, Esq. Heidi@KLGattorneys.com, hshadid20@gmail.com
Sloane Ryan Lile, Esq. Sloane@KLGattorneys.com
Keesling Law Group, PLLC
401 S. Boston Avenue
Mid-Continent Tower, Suite 450
Tulsa, OK 74103
(918) 924-5101 Phone
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Charles D. Neal, Jr., cdn@steidley-neal.com
Steidley & Neal (McAlester)
P.O. Box 1165
McAlester, OK 74502
(918) 423-4611
and
Rachel D. Parrilli, rdp@steidley-neal.com
Stacie L. Hixon, slh@steidley-neal.com
Steidley & Neal (Tulsa)
2448 E. 81
st
St., Ste 5300
Tulsa, OK 74137
(918) 664-4133
Attorneys for Defendants, Best Drug Rehabilitation, Joseph Guernaccini, Anthony
Bylsma, Friends of Narconon International, Glen Petcavage, A Life Worth Living,
Thomas Garcia, Golden Millennium Productions, Inc., David S. Lee, III, Richard Hawk,
Narconon South Texas, Inc., Narconon Eastern United States, Inc., GreatCircle Studios,
LLC, James Woodworth, Narconon Freedom Center, Inc., Narconon Spring Hill, Inc.,
Jonathan Beazley, International Academy of Detoxification Specialists, Premazon, Inc.,
Royalmark Management, Inc., Jonathan Moretti, Luria K. Dion, Carl Smith, Daphna
Hernandez, Mary Rieser, Michael DiPalma, Nicholas Thiel, Robert J. Henandez,
Narconon of Georgia, Inc. and Rebecca Pool.

71

John H. Tucker, jtucker@rhodesokla.com
Colin H. Tucker, chtucker@rhodesokla.com
Kerry R. Lewis, klewis@rhodesokla.com
Denelda L. Richardson, drichardson@rhodesokla.com
Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable
P.O. Box 21100
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74121-1100
Phone: (918) 582-1173
Attorneys for Defendant, Narconon International, Association for Better Living and
Education International and Clark Carr

David L. Bryant, dbryant@gablelaw.com
David E. Keglovits, dkeglovits@gablelaw.com
Amelia A. Fogleman, afogleman@gablelaw.com
Gable Gotwals
1100 ONEOK Plaza
100 W. Fifth Street
Tulsa, OK 74103-4217
Attorneys for Defendant, Religious Technology Center

Richard P. Hix, Richard.hix@mcafeetaft.com
Alison A. Verret, Alison.verret@mcafeetaft.com
McAfee & Taft, P.C.
1717 S. Boulder Ave., Suite 900
Tulsa, OK 74119
Attorneys for Defendant, David S. Lee, III, Philip R. Kelly, II

John J. Carwile, jcarwile@mmmsk.com
Mary E. Kindelt, mkindelt@mmmsk.com
McDonald McCann Metcalf & Carwile
First Place Tower
15 East Fifth Street, Suite 1400
Tulsa, OK 74103
Attorneys for Defendant, Church of Scientology International

Nathaniel T. Haskins, nhaskins@hallestill.com
Robert D. Nelon, bnelon@hallestill.com
Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson (OKC)
100 N. Broadway, Ste. 2900
Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8865
Attorneys for Defendant Narconon Freedom Center, Inc. and Nicholas Thiel

72

Todd A. Nelson
Fellers Snider Blankenship Bailey & Tippens (Tulsa)
321 S. Boston Ave., Ste. 800
Tulsa, OK 74103
Attorneys for Jonathan Beazley, Joseph Guernaccini, Michael DePalma

s/ Wm. Gregory James
Wm. Gregory James


NAFC v. Scientology: Answer and Counterclaim by Narconon Oklahoma

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

NAFC v. Scientology: Answer and Counterclaim by Narconon Oklahoma

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen