UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, DC 20436
`Before Administrative Law Judge Paul J. Luckern
`
`CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL
`VEHICLES AND COMPONENTS
`THEREOF
`
`1
`1
`1
`1
`
`Investigation No. 3 3 7-TA- 4 8 7
`
`RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT J&T FARMS TO
`COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION
`
`Respondent
`
`J&T Farms
`370 Spring Grove Road
`East Earl, PA 17519
`
`Counsel for Respondent
`
`William A. Zeitler, Esq.
`Thompson Coburn LLP
`1909 K Street, NW
`Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20006
`Phone: (202) 585-6900
`Fax: (202) 508-1030
`
`2083060
`
`
`WASHINGTON, DC 20436
`Before Administrative Law Judge Paul J. Luckern
`
`CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL
`VEHICLES AND COMPONENTS
`THEREOF
`
`1
`1
`1
`1
`
`Investigation No. 3 3 7-TA- 4 8 7
`
`RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT J&T FARMS TO
`COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION
`
`Respondent
`
`J&T Farms
`370 Spring Grove Road
`East Earl, PA 17519
`
`Counsel for Respondent
`
`William A. Zeitler, Esq.
`Thompson Coburn LLP
`1909 K Street, NW
`Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20006
`Phone: (202) 585-6900
`Fax: (202) 508-1030
`
`2083060
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, DC 20436
`Before Administrative Law Judge Paul J. Luckern
`
`CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL
`VEHICLES AND COMPONENTS
`THEREOF
`
`1
`1
`1
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-487
`
`RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT J&T FARMS TO
`COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rule of Practice and Procedure 2 10.13, Respondent
`
`J&T Farms (hereinafter ”J&T Farms” and/or “Respondent”) responds to the Complaint
`
`of Complainant Deere & Company (hereinafter “Deere” and/or “Complainant”), filed
`
`on January 8, 2003, as supplemented on January 27, 2003 and January 28, 2003, as set
`
`forth in the Notice of Investigation as follows:
`I. RESPONSE TO SECTION I - INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Respondent denies that the U.S. International Trade Commission has
`
`jurisdiction over the alleged exportation from Europe, and the importation and sale by
`
`Respondent in the United States, of alleged “gray market’’ forage harvesters made by
`
`Deere in Europe.
`
`2.
`
`Respondent admits that the Complaint alleges that Respondents have
`
`engaged in unfair acts in the importation of sale of certain agricultural vehicles and
`
`components thereof, but denies, generally and specifically, that it has engaged in any
`
`2083060
`
`
`
`unfair acts in its importation or sale of forage harvesters made by Deere in Europe.
`
`Respondent denies any involvement in the importation and sale of telehandlers or
`
`agricultural tractors.
`
`3.
`
`Respondent admits that the Complaint divides respondents into two
`
`groups and that the Complaint indicates that the first group is involved in the
`
`exportation, importation and sale of alleged ”gray market” forage harvesters and
`
`telehandlers made by Deere in Europe.
`
`4.
`
`Respondent admits that the Complaint indicates that the second group of
`
`respondents comprises those respondents allegedly involved in the exportation from
`
`China, and the subsequent importation and sale, of agricultural tractors that allegedly
`
`infringe on Deere’s trademarks.
`
`5.
`
`Respondent admits that the Complaint indicates that Deere
`
`manufactures a “European Version” and a “U.S. Version” of forage harvesters and
`
`telehandlers. Respondent is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`6.
`
`Respondent admits that the Complaint refers to certain Deere forage
`
`harvesters and telehandlers as “European Version” forage harvesters and “European
`
`Version” telehandlers. Respondent also admits that the Complaint refers to other
`
`Deere forage harvesters and telehandlers as “U.S. Version” forage harvesters and “U.S.
`
`Version” telehandlers. Respondent denies that the so-called ”European Version” forage
`
`harvesters are “materially different” from the so-called “U.S. Version” forage harvesters.
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Respondent is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 6, and therefore denies these allegations.
`
`7.
`
`Respondent admits that it has purchased so-called “European Version”
`
`forage harvesters made by Deere. Respondent is without knowledge sufficient to form
`
`a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 7, and therefore denies
`
`these allegations.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Respondent denies the allegations of Paragraph 8.
`
`Respondent is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`10. Respondent is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`1 1. Respondent admits that Deere is seeking exclusionary relief and a cease
`
`and desist order under Section 337. Respondent denies that such relief is appropriate.
`
`11. RESPONSE TO SECTION 11- THE COMPLAINANT
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 12.
`
`Respondent is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`14. Respondent is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`15. Respondent is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`16. Respondent is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`17. Respondent is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`18. Respondent is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`19. Respondent is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`20. Respondent is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`21. Respondent is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`22. Respondent is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`23. Respondent is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`24. Respondent is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`25. Respondent is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`26. Respondent is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`27. Respondent admits that what purports to be a copy of Deere’s 2001
`
`Annual Report is attached to the Complaint as E h b i t 1.
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`111. RESPONSE TO SECTION 111- THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
`RIGHTS AT ISSUE
`
`A.
`
`Deere’s Green and Yellow Trademark
`
`28.
`
`Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 28 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`29. Respondent states that, to the extent the Complaint seeks to characterize
`
`U.S. Regstration No. 1,254,339, the registration speaks for itself. Respondent is
`
`without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 29 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`30. Respondent states that, to the extent the Complaint seeks to characterize
`
`U.S. Registration No. 1,502,103, the registration speaks for itself. Respondent is
`
`without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 30 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`3 1. Respondent states that, to the extent the Complaint seeks to characterize
`
`U.S. Registration No. 1,503,576, the registration speaks for itself. Respondent is
`
`without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 31 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`32. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 32 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`33. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 33 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`34. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 34 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`35. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 35 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`36. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 36 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`37. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 37 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`B. The TOHN DEERE Trademark
`
`38. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`39. Respondent states that, to the extent the Complaint seeks to characterize
`
`U.S. Registration No. 91,860, the regstration speaks for itself. Respondent is without
`
`sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations of Paragraph 39 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`40. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 40 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`41. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 41 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`42. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 42 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`43. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 43 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`44. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 44 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`45. Respondent admits that the Complaint refers to the marks as “Deere’s
`
`registered trademarks. ”
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`C.
`
`The LeaDing Deer Mark
`
`46. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 46 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`47. To the extent the Complaint seeks to characterize U.S. Trademark
`
`Application Serial No. 76/095,359, the application speaks for itself. Respondent
`
`admits that the Complaint states that Deere intends to amend its Complaint.
`
`Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 47 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`IV. RESPONSE TO SECTION IV- THE PRODUCTS AT ISSUE
`
`A.
`
`Forage Harvesters and Telehandlers
`
`1.
`
`Forage Harvesters
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 48 of the Complaint.
`
`Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 49 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`50. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 50 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`- 1 0 -
`
`
`
`5 1. Respondent admits that the heads of the so-called ”European Version”
`
`forage harvesters are marked KEMPER, do not carry the Deere name or logo, but do
`
`bear the colors green and yellow. Respondent denies that there are “significant
`
`differences” between the “European Version” and ”U.S. Version” machines.
`
`Respondent is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 51 of the complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`52. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 52 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`53. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 53 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies these allegations.
`
`54. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 54 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies these allegations.
`55. Respondent admits that the so-called ”European Version” and ”U.S.
`Version” forage harvesters are green and yellow and bear the JOHN DEERE mark.
`
`2.
`
`Telehandlers
`
`56.
`
`Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 56 of the Complaint.
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`57. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 57 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`58. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 58 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`59. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 59 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`60. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of 60 of the Complaint, and therefore denies
`
`those allegations.
`
`61. Respondent admits that the so-called “European Version” and ”U.S.
`Version” telehandlers are green and yellow, bear the JOHN DEERE mark, and contain
`
`a depiction of a leaping deer.
`
`B.
`
`Agricultural Tractors
`
`62. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 62 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations. Exhibits 12 and 13 speak for themselves.
`
`63. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 63 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`- 12-
`
`
`
`64. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 64 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`65. Respondent admits that Deere’s tractors are green and yellow and bear
`the JOHN DEERE and leaping deer marks.
`
`V. RESPONSE TO SECTION V - THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY
`
`66. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 66 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`A.
`
`Investment in Plant and Equipment
`
`67.
`
`Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 67 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`68. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 68 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`69. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 69 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`- 13-
`
`
`
`70. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 70 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`71. Respondent is without sufficient infomation or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 71 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`B.
`
`Significant Emplovment of Capital or Labor in the Exploitation of
`Deere’s Registered Trademark
`
`72. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 72 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`73. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 73 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`74. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 74 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`C.
`
`Substantial Investment in the Exploitation of Deere’s Registered
`Trademark
`
`75. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 75 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`- 14-
`
`
`
`76. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 76 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`77. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 77 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`78. The list of licenses and the sample license agreement speak for
`
`themselves. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 78 of the Complaint,
`
`and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`VI. RESPONSE TO SECTION VI - PROPOSED RESPONDENTS
`
`79. Respondent admits that the Complaint divides respondents into two
`
`groups. Respondent denies that the so-called "European Version" forage harvesters
`
`infringe any valid trademarks owned by Deere. Respondent is without sufficient
`
`information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`of Paragraph 79 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`A.
`
`Forage Harvesters and Telehandlers
`
`1.
`
`Foreign Dealers and Exporters
`
`80.
`
`Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 80 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`81.
`
`82.
`
`Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 81 of the Complaint.
`
`Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 82 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`83. Respondent is without sufficient infomation or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 83 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`84. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 84 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`85. Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 85 of the Complaint.
`
`2.
`
`United States Importers and Dealers
`
`86.
`
`Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 86 of the Complaint.
`
`87.
`
`Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 87 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`88.
`
`Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 88 of the Complaint.
`
`89.
`
`Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 89 of the Complaint.
`
`90.
`
`Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 90 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`- 1 6 -
`
`
`
`91. Respondent admits that its street address is 370 Spring Grove Road, but
`
`denies that t h s is in Ephrata, Pennsylvania. The correct location is East Earl,
`
`Pennsylvania 175 19.
`
`92.
`
`93.
`
`Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 92 of the Complaint.
`
`Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 93 of the Complaint.
`
`94.
`
`Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 94 of the Complaint.
`
`B.
`
`Agricultural Tractors
`
`1.
`
`Chinese Manufacturers
`
`95.
`
`Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 95 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`96. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 96 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies these allegations.
`
`97. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 97 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Importers and Dealers
`
`98.
`
`Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 98 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`99. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 99 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`100. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 100 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`10 1. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 101 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`102. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 102 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`103. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 103 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`104. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 104 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`105. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 105 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`106. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 106 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`107. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 107 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`108. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 108 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`109. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 109 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`VII. RESPONSE TO SECTION VI1 - IMPORTATION AND SALE
`Forage Harvesters and Telehandlers
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`Importation and Sale
`
`110. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 1 10 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`1 1 1. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 11 1 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`- 19-
`
`
`
`112. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 112 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`1 13. Respondent admits that a number of Deere’s so called “European
`
`Version” forage harvesters have been sold in the United States. Respondent is without
`
`sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations of Paragraph 113 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`1 14. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 114 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`2.
`
`Specific Acts of Unfair Competition by Respondents
`
`1 15. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 11 5 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`1 16. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 116 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`1 17. Respondents admits that Respondent Agrideal exports used ”European
`
`Version” forage harvesters to the United States. Respondent is without sufficient
`
`information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`of Paragraph 11 7 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`1 18. Respondent denies the first sentence of Paragraph 1 18 of the Complaint,
`
`since the forage harvesters were shipped from France, and not Germany. Respondent
`
`admits the last sentence of Paragraph 11 8.
`
`119. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 119 of the Complaint,
`
`and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`120. Respondent admits that Respondent Erntetechmk Franz Becker exports
`
`used “European Version” forage harvesters to the United States. Respondent is without
`
`sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations of Paragraph 120 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`121. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 12 1 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`122. Respondent admits the first sentence of Paragraph 122. Respondent is
`
`without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 122 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`123. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 123 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 124 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`125. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 125 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`126. Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 126 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`127. Respondent admits the first and second sentences of Paragraph 127 of the
`
`Complaint. Respondent denies the third sentence of Paragraph 127 of the Complaint,
`
`since the forage harvesters were shipped from France and not Germany. Respondent is
`
`without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 127 of the Complaint.
`
`128. Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 128 of the Complaint.
`
`129. Respondent admits the first sentence of Paragraph 129 of the Complaint.
`
`Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 129 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`130. Respondent admits the first sentence of Paragraph 130. Respondent is
`
`without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations of Paragraph 130, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`- 22 -
`
`
`
`13 1. Respondent admits the first sentence of Paragraph 13 1. Respondent is
`
`without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 13 1 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`3.
`
`Material Differences - Forage Harvesters
`
`132. Respondent denies that the worlung conditions on European farms vary
`
`in any relevant way from working conditions on American farms, and denies that the
`
`government regulations pertaining to farm equipment vary sigmficantly between the
`
`United States and European countries.
`
`133. Respondent denies that the so-called “European Version” forage
`
`harvesters are ”materially different” from the so-called ”U.S. Version” forage harvesters.
`
`Respondent submits that the examples provided in the Complaint do not show that
`
`these harvesters are “materially different”.
`
`A.
`
`Respondent denies that this example shows that the ”U.S. Version” and
`
`“European Version” forage harvesters are “materially different.” Respondent denies
`
`that there is any difference in required safety features . Respondent specifically denies
`
`that the presence or absence of safety switches on the seat results in “materially
`
`different” harvesters. Up until 1993, neither the so-called “European Version” nor the
`
`so called “U.S. Version” forage harvesters had safety switches on the seat. Safety
`
`switches were introduced on the U.S. Version harvesters for the first time in 1993. On
`
`information and belief, the “European Version” forage harvesters come “ready wired”
`
`- 23 -
`
`
`
`for safety switches. Customers desiring safety switches can easily arrange for their
`
`installation. All relevant safety standards are met by both the “European Version” and
`
`“U.S. Version” forage harvesters.
`B. Respondent denies that this example shows that the ”U.S. Version” and
`
`“European Version” forage harvesters are “materially different.” Respondent
`
`specifically denies the allegation that the pollution control systems on the “European
`
`Version’’ forage harvesters imported to date by Respondent are different or non-existent
`
`as compared to the “U.S. Version” forage harvesters. The “European Version” and
`
`”U.S. Version’’ forage harvesters imported by Respondent have the same Deere motors.
`
`Respondent submits that the pollution control systems on the “European Version”
`
`forage harvesters imported by it into the United States comply with all relevant EPA
`
`regulations and California emission controls for their years of production.
`
`C.
`
`Respondent denies that this example shows that the “U.S. Version” and
`
`”European Version” forage harvesters are “materially different.’’ Respondent admits
`
`that seat belts are an option on the “European Version” forage harvesters, but denies
`
`that this results in ”materially different” forage harvesters. As the Complaint notes,
`seat belts are present on a number of “European Version” foreign harvesters sold in the
`
`U.S. If seat belts are desired, they can easily be installed by customers in the
`
`“European Version’’ forage harvester. Respondent is without information sufficient to
`
`admit or deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 133 C, and therefore denies the
`
`same.
`
`- 24 -
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Respondent denies that this example shows that the ”European Version”
`
`and “U.S. Version” forage harvesters are ”materially different." Respondent specifically
`
`denies that the positioning and arrangement of the lights on the ”European Versio
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
