NAFC v. Scientology: Answer and Counterclaim of Kent Mcgregor

1
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 KENT MCGREGOR
The Defendant, Kent McGregor (MCGREGOR) 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 MCGREGOR and for his 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
1. MCGREGOR is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the
allegations contained in paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 290 Filed in ED/OK on 08/01/14 Page 1 of 68
2
2. MCGREGOR is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the
allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
3. The allegations contained in paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
unrelated to and require no answer from MCGREGOR. To the extent that an answer is
required, MCGREGOR is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny those
allegations and therefore denies them.
6. MCGREGOR admits the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of
Plaintiffs Complaint.
3
4
5
6
required, is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny those allegations and therefore
denies them.
7
8
9
41. MCGREGOR admits the allegations contained in paragraph 41 of
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
85. MCGREGOR 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
17
Court would have subject matter jurisdiction over claims made against this Defendant,
only, as alleged in paragraph 85 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
86. MCGREGOR admits this Court has personal jurisdiction over him as
alleged in the allegations of paragraph 86 of Plaintiffs Complaint 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. MCGREGOR specifically denies the allegations contained in the last
two sentences of paragraph 86 of Plaintiffs Complaint except that he has maintained and
operated certain websites. 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 MCGREGOR.
87. MCGREGOR 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
is required, upon information and belief, MCGREGOR admits that NAFC provides
certifications for professionals working with criminal offenders in the fields of criminal
justice, corrections, additions and mental health but MCGREGOR is without sufficient
18
information to admit or deny that such certifications are nationally accredited
certifications as alleged in paragraph 88 of Plaintiffs Complaint and therefore denies
those allegations.
is required, MCGREGOR is without sufficient information to admit or deny those
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, MCGREGOR 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, MCGREGOR is without sufficient information to admit or
deny those allegations and therefore denies them.
19
is required, upon information and belief, MCGREGOR 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, MCGREGOR is
without sufficient information to admit or deny those allegations and therefore denies
them.
20
is required, MCGREGOR, upon information and belief, admits the allegations contained
in paragraph 99 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
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, MCGREGOR is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny those
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, MCGREGOR, upon information and belief, denies the
allegations contained in paragraph 101 and 101 a. and b. of Plaintiffs Complaint.
answer is required, MCGREGOR is without sufficient information to admit or deny those
21
answer is required, MCGREGOR, 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, MCGREGOR is without sufficient
information to admit or deny those allegations and therefore denies them.
22
109. MCGREGOR is without sufficient information to admit or deny the
allegations contained in paragraph 109 of Plaintiffs Complaint and therefore denies
them.
Defendants Misuse of NAFC Mark, Certifications and Logos
110. MCGREGORs 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.
allegations and therefore denies them. MCGREGOR specifically denies he is part of the
Narconon Network as defined by Plaintiffs.
allegations of paragraph 113 as they relate to the other entities or and individuals
identified and therefore denies them. MCGREGOR admits that he and Pita Group, Inc.
have websites and refer individuals for treatment to Narconon Treatment Centers as well
as other treatment centers.
23
amount to a statement or conclusion about other Defendants and require no answer by
MCGREGOR. To the extent that an answer is required, MCGREGOR is without
sufficient information to admit or deny those allegations and therefore denies them.
115. MCGREGOR 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.
24
120. MCGREGOR denies the allegations contained in paragraph 120 of
Plaintiffs Complaint, as framed. MCGREGOR affirmatively states that any reference to
NAFC credentials and certifications were voluntarily removed by him following NAFC
notifying him in the spring of 2013 and making certain false and defamatory statements
about him (the Alleged NAFC Notice). If any references to NAFC credentials or
certifications were made after the Alleged NAFC Notice, 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 Notice, and efforts to remove any that may
still exist and can be accessed continue.
Plaintiffs Complaint insofar as they may relate to him.
amount to a statement or conclusion as to Defendants other than MCGREGOR and that
are therefore unrelated to and require no answer from MCGREGOR. To the extent that
25
the allegations of paragraph 124 of Plaintiffs' Complaint relate to MCGREGOR and
require an answer from MCGREGOR, those allegations are denied.
amount to a statement or conclusion as to a Defendant other than MCGREGOR and that
is therefore unrelated to and require no answer from MCGREGOR. To the extent that the
allegations of paragraph 126 require an answer from MCGREGOR, those allegations are
denied.
amount to a statement or conclusion as to a Defendant other than MCGREGOR and that
is therefore unrelated to and require no answer from MCGREGOR. To the extent that the
allegations of paragraph 127 require an answer from MCGREGOR, those allegations are
denied.
26
amount to a statement or conclusion or are unrelated to and require no answer from
sufficient information to admit or deny those allegations and must therefore deny them.
27
required, MCGREGOR is without sufficient information to admit or deny those
28
29
30
31
Plaintiffs Complaint, as framed, and affirmatively states that he and the PITA Group,
Inc. (PITA) worked in conjunction with the NAFC to bestow upon over 200
individuals the certification of CCDC by helping them submit applications to NAFC, by
giving them training on the study materials recommended by NAFC, and by proctoring
tests that NAFC required them to pass in order to become certified by NAFC. Further,
MCGREGOR affirmatively states, upon information and belief, that NAFC endorsed,
approved, and supported his affiliation with NAFC because of his reputation in the field
of drug abuse treatment and prevention, his legitimate graduate degree, and because he
was appointed by the Secretary of the Health Department of the State of New Mexico to
oversee the entire substance abuse and treatment activities for the state. Upon
information and belief, MCGREGOR never applied for and never paid any application
fee for any certification by NAFC but was nevertheless provided several certifications by
32
NAFC at its own initiative. This Defendant affirmatively alleges that good faith efforts
were taken to remove references to NAFC credentials and certifications following the
Alleged NAFC Notice, and efforts to remove any that may still exist and can be accessed
continue.
Plaintiffs Complaint, as framed, and incorporates herein as if fully repeated the
affirmative statements made in his answer to the allegations contained in paragraph 159
of Plaintiffs' Complaint.
Plaintiffs Complaint, as framed, and affirmatively states that he has never been a CCDC
with NAFC. MCGREGOR admits, however, instances where Master Addiction Social
Work Counselor (MASWC) appeared after his name but affirmatively states that he
was given that certification by NAFC. MCGREGOR is without sufficient information to
admit or deny whether NAFC has any record of his certification or not, but affirmatively
alleges that he received a certificate and card from NAFC stating, among other things,
that he Is a member in good standing and holds the certification of Master Social Work
Addictions Counselor. His certification number was #25119 which indicates that a
record of the certification does exist and that Plaintiffs' allegation that NAFC has no
record of his certification is knowingly false or made with a reckless disregard for
whether it is a true statement or not, and/or made in bad faith. This Defendant
affirmatively alleges that good faith efforts were taken to remove references to NAFC
credentials and certifications following the Alleged NAFC Notice, and efforts to remove
any that may still exist and can be accessed continue.
33
Plaintiffs Complaint, as framed, and affirmatively states that he did have the M.A.C
certification from NAFC. In fact, he received a certificate and card from NAFC stating,
among other things, that he Is a member in good standing and holds the certification of
Master Addictions Counselor. His certification number was #25119. This Defendant
affirmatively alleges that good faith efforts were taken to remove references to NAFC
credentials and certifications following the Alleged NAFC Notice, and efforts to remove
any that may still exist and can be accessed continue.
Plaintiffs Complaint, as framed, and affirmatively alleges that was a Diplomate of the he
was, in fact, a Diplomate of the National Board of Addictions Examiner. In fact, he
received a certificate and card from NAFC stating, among other things, that he Is a
member in good standing and holds the certification of Diplomate of the Board. His
certification number was #25119. This Defendant affirmatively alleges that good faith
efforts were taken to remove references to NAFC credentials and certifications following
the Alleged NAFC Notice, and efforts to remove any that may still exist and can be
accessed continue.
34
Further, this Defendant affirmatively alleges that good faith efforts were taken to remove
any references to NAFC certifications following the Alleged NAFC Notice, and efforts to
remove any that may still exist and can be accessed continue.
35
Plaintiffs Complaint, as framed, and affirmatively alleges that he was, in fact, a
Diplomate of the National Board of Addictions Examiners. In fact, he received a
certificate and card from NAFC stating, among other things, that he Is a member in
good standing and holds the certification of Diplomate of the Board. His certification
number was #25119. This Defendant affirmatively alleges that good faith efforts were
taken to remove references to NAFC credentials and certifications following the Alleged
NAFC Notice, and efforts to remove any that may still exist and can be accessed
continue.
36
37
38
39
40
Plaintiffs Complaint, as framed, and affirmatively alleges that good faith efforts were
taken to remove references to NAFC credentials and certifications following the Alleged
NAFC Notice, and efforts to remove any that may still exist and can be accessed
continue.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
allegations contained in paragraph 248 and subparagraphs 248a through 248f of
Plaintiffs Complaint and must therefore deny them.
250. Except for www.drug-rehab-colorado.com, the allegations contained in
paragraph 250 of Plaintiffs Complaint are, unrelated to and require no answer from
MCGREGOR. To the extent that an answer is required, upon information and belief,
50
MCGREGOR denies those allegations and specifically denies use of the NAFC logo.
This Defendant affirmatively alleges that good faith efforts were taken to remove
references to NAFC credentials and certifications following the Alleged NAFC Notice,
and efforts to remove any that may still exist and can be accessed continue.
allegations and must therefore deny them.
allegations and must therefore deny them.
amount to a statement or conclusion and are unrelated to and require no answer from
51
answer is required, MCGREGOR denies those allegations. MCGREGOR 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
MCGREGOR. To the extent that an answer is required, MCGREGOR denies those
allegations.
Plaintiffs Complaint and demand strict proof of any and all damages claimed, if any.
CAUSES OF ACTI ON
I. FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
260. MCGREGOR incorporates herein as if fully repeated its answers above to
paragraphs 1 through 259 of Plaintiffs' Complaint.
261. MCGREGOR denies the allegations in paragraph 261 of Plaintiffs'
Complaint insofar as it relates to his websites and publications. MCGREGOR 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 following the Alleged NAFC Notice, and efforts to remove any that may
52
still exist and can be accessed continue. Further, this Defendant affirmatively alleges
that any reference to NAFC credentials or certifications following the Alleged NAFC
Notice was inadvertent and not willful or intentional conduct violating any law.
However, MCGREGOR denies the implication of the allegations made in paragraph 261
of Plaintiffs' Complaint that authorization from Plaintiffs was needed or required for
MCGREGOR to make references to NAFC credentials or certifications given to
individuals on its websites or in its publications following the Alleged NAFC Notice.
MCGREGOR 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 MCGREGOR. Further, MCGREGOR 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 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
53
descriptive terms that have not acquired distinctiveness, i.e., secondary meaning the
minds of the public by becoming distinctive of NAFCs services in commerce.
Plaintiffs' Complaint.
Plaintiffs' Complaint and demands strict proof of damages, if any, claimed by Plaintiffs.
54
II. COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiffs' 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.
55
Plaintiffs' Complaint and demands strict proof of all damages claimed by Plaintiffs.
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
286. MCGREGOR 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 Notice was
inadvertent and not willful or intentional conduct violating any law.
Plaintiffs' Complaint, and demands strict proof of any damages claimed by Plaintiffs.
56
Plaintiffs' Complaint. MCGREGOR 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.
Plaintiffs' Complaint, and demands strict proof of any damages claimed by Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs' Complaint, and specifically denies any conduct justifying an award of punitive
damages.
V. CIVIL CONSPIRACY
57
Plaintiffs' Complaint and demands strict proof of all harm and loss claimed by Plaintiffs.
V. REQUEST FOR INJUNCTION
Plaintiffs' Complaint. MCGREGOR affirmatively alleges that good faith efforts were
taken to remove any references to NAFC credentials and certifications following the
Alleged NAFC Notice, and efforts to remove any that may still exist and can be accessed
continue. To the extent that Plaintiffs' allegations relate to MCGREGOR, injunctive
relief is not necessary since MCGREGOR agrees to remove or delete any references to
NAFC's credentials and certifications appearing on any of his websites or in his
publications, thus rendering moot Plaintiffs alleged risk of further damages, although
MCGREGOR specifically denies such risk actually exists.
Plaintiffs' Complaint. MCGREGOR affirmatively alleges that good faith efforts were
taken to remove any references to NAFC credentials and certifications following the
NAFC Revocation, and efforts to remove any that may still exist and can be accessed
continue. To the extent that Plaintiffs' allegations relate to MCGREGOR, a command to
refrain is not necessary since MCGREGOR agrees to remove or delete any references to
NAFC's credentials and certifications appearing on any of his websites or in his
58
publications, thus rendering moot Plaintiffs' need for injunctive relief, although
MCGREGOR specifically denies any such need actually exists.
Plaintiffs' Complaint and specifically denies that Plaintiffs have or will suffer irreparable
harm.
Plaintiffs' Complaint and specifically denies Plaintiffs' need for any preliminary
injunction during the pendency of this litigation.
Plaintiffs' Complaint and specifically denies Plaintiffs' need for a permanent injunction to
prevent use of NAFC Certifications and Logos.
303. MCGREGOR denies the allegations contained in paragraph 303 and 303a
through 303d of Plaintiffs' Complaint. MCGREGOR affirmatively alleges that Plaintiffs
alleged Mark, Certification and Logo are not entitled to or should be afforded any
protection under any trademark law, provisional or permanent.
Plaintiffs' Complaint and specifically denies Plaintiffs entitlement to injunctive relief
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1116(a). Plaintiffs' alleged Mark, Certification and Logo are
merely descriptive and have not acquired any secondary meaning; any right Plaintiffs
may have to register their alleged Mark, Certification and Logo should be and is
challenged by MCGREGOR here and in his Counterclaim below; and, MCGREGOR
seeks a determination and declaration by the Court in its Counterclaim below that any
59
trademark registration Plaintiffs' claim to have for their alleged Mark, Certification and
Logo be cancelled.
CONCLUSION
MCGREGOR 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
or the Common Law (Counts I-III); PROPOSITION II. Plaintiffs' Cause of Action for
60
"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
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
5. Plaintiffs' claims for damages, if any, are limited by Defendants' innocent
intent.
61
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.
18. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the conduct of third persons over whom
this Defendant had no control.
62
19. Any award of exemplary damages in favor of Plaintiffs and against
MCGREGOR 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 MCGREGOR.
MCGREGOR reserves the right to amend this Answer to include further defenses
as discovery progresses and as allowed by the Court.
WHEREFORE, Kent McGregor, having answered Plaintiffs' Complaint, prays
judgment in his favor and that he be allowed to go hence with all costs incurred,
63
including reasonable attorneys' fees, and for such other relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
COUNTERCLAIM
COMES NOW, the Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff, Kent McGregor
(hereinafter MCGREGOR), and for his 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. MCGREGOR 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 MCGREGOR, 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 Trademark Office (USPTO) under section 2(f) of the Lanham Act, 15
U.S.C. 1052(f) (the Mark).
64
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 MCGREGORs Answer and Affirmative Defenses, an actual controversy
has arisen and now exists between MCGREGOR and NAFC and ACCFC as to whether
the Mark should be cancelled, and MCGREGOR seeks a determination and declaration
from the Court that NAFCs registration of the Mark be cancelled pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
1119.
WHEREFORE, MCGREGOR 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 MCGREGOR; and for such
other relief as the Court deems just, equitable and proper.
65

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 DEFENDANT
KENT MCGREGOR

66
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.
67

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
68

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 of Kent Mcgregor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

NAFC v. Scientology: Answer and Counterclaim of Kent Mcgregor

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

NAFC v. Scientology: Answer and Counterclaim of Kent Mcgregor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

You might also like