Clark Baker Misses Deadline to Refile State Defamation Claims Against Me

After the Texas Federal Court dismissed Baker’s frivolous trademark claims against me (holding that the complaint had not even alleged a tenable claim for infringement), it did so upon jurisdictional grounds such that it did not have to deal with the State claims. The Federal Court allowed Plaintiff Baker to refile those claims in State Court where they were “more proper”. Baker’s attorney Weitz verbally told my attorneys they planned to refile. However, the deadline passed as of August 25, 2014.

Personally I was hoping he would refile. It would not have meant more work for either side. The Federal Court explicitly said the same documents could be filed in State Court that had been filed in Federal Court.  I know there was no way for me to lose as I have done nothing wrong and I was hoping to see how badly the State Court judge would humiliate Baker. But Baker’s counsel must have finally been able to talk some sense into him regarding those claims as I am sure they knew their case had no legal standing.

So why did Baker blow off the State charges and appeal the trademark claim to the Circuit Court? One big, fat reason is that Baker cannot let go of his Conspiracy Theory that I am working with and being paid by Big Pharma and scientists such as Dr. Gallo. As I have written about before, Baker thinks he can use my lawsuit as a vehicle to depose Dr. Gallo. Or perhaps Mr. Baker needs to strike out three times to learn his lesson:

Strike 1: Arbitraton

Baker not only lost UDRP arbitration (which is notoriously favorable to trademark holders), he was also found Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking; the UDRP equivalent of bad faith.

“The Panel finds Complainant has engaged in reverse domain name hijacking because it was clear Respondent was legitimately using Complainant’s mark to make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.  Complainant clearly knew this before it began this proceeding.  Complainant did not disclose this obvious fact in its Complaint.”

Strike 2: Federal Lawsuit

As I said above, this case barely made it out of the gate before it was dismissed for the same basic reasons he lost arbitration. But this is even more pathetic because Baker knew I have exceptional attorneys. These attorneys schooled plaintiff counsel on the case laws in two different responses: Original and First Amended Complaint. Despite this Law School 101 they still refused to admit their case was a loser.

Strike 3: Withdrawing Appeal from the Circuit Court

I am betting that once Baker loses the current fight against paying my attorney fees he will reconsider the appeal. But on one hand, I am hoping he does not withdraw the case because I am interested to see what the Circuit Court judge would say. But on the other hand, my attorneys are working pro-bono and I don’t want them to have to do more work. But on the third hand, after they are awarded fees out of Baker’s pockets, perhaps they will be motivated. Just think how sweet it must be as an attorney to win a case and then have the losing side pay your fees! And now that Baker has missed the deadline for refiling the State Claims, my attorneys are going to file a motion for award of attorney fees under the Texas Citizens Participation Act.

Tagged: , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: