 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
On Feb 13 '08 I [Larry Rice] was notified that I was being sued by Armstrong Teasdale, a Saint Louis law-firm
representing Frank van Stipdonk and Interfood Holding B.V.
The suit claims that my interfood.us-website "creates the false belief or impression throughout the
dairy-trading industry that DF Ingredients is endorsed, sponsored and/or associated by and with Interfood
Holding and the Interfood Group"... GOD FORBID! Teasdale seemed to suggest that I should open
"Interfood Sucks" instead of using "interfood.us"... given Teasdale's ties to the Saint Louis police and
influence with local government agencies, how can I resist such a suggestion?
I am quite sure that the lawsuit # 4:08-cv-00085-DJS filed in Federal Court has nothing to do with my
creating a "false belief or impression" but rather the suit is simply a poorly disguised attempt at diverting
attention from the fact that some in the Interfood Group continue to violate the terms of the Exclusivity
Agreement contained within my June 1st '03 Shareholders Agreement signed in Holland in October '03.
representing Frank van Stipdonk and Interfood Holding B.V.
The suit claims that my interfood.us-website "creates the false belief or impression throughout the
dairy-trading industry that DF Ingredients is endorsed, sponsored and/or associated by and with Interfood
Holding and the Interfood Group"... GOD FORBID! Teasdale seemed to suggest that I should open
"Interfood Sucks" instead of using "interfood.us"... given Teasdale's ties to the Saint Louis police and
influence with local government agencies, how can I resist such a suggestion?
I am quite sure that the lawsuit # 4:08-cv-00085-DJS filed in Federal Court has nothing to do with my
creating a "false belief or impression" but rather the suit is simply a poorly disguised attempt at diverting
attention from the fact that some in the Interfood Group continue to violate the terms of the Exclusivity
Agreement contained within my June 1st '03 Shareholders Agreement signed in Holland in October '03.
The original Domain-suit was filed against me and Mike Husmann and DF Ingredients, of course, but in a
summary judgment the court dropped all charges against Mike and DF Ingredients.
In order to keep the suit going for its harassment value, Armstrong Teasdale withdrew its claim against me
for damages, as well as its claim that Interfood had something to do with setting up my web-site.
In an effort to strengthen its position in this suit Armstrong Teasdale filed for a Trademark registration in the
US [Application No. 77747639] claiming that the Dutch have been using this mark in the US for many years,
when in fact the Shareholders agreement gives that exclusive right to Interfood, Inc., Indiana.
I opposed that application, of course [Opposition No. 91192745] indicating among other things that:
"A federal court judge in the US District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, in Case No.
4:08-cv-00085, Interfood Holding BV vs Larry Rice, ruled that as a matter of law, the word "interfood" is not
inherently distinctive and therefor can not be protected... he found this in part based on 20,000 hits when
googling "interfood"."
At Teasdale's request, both the Domain-case brought against me, and Teasdale's request for registration of
"interfood", are on hold pending the outcome of the Interfood v Larry Rice case in Franklin County MO.
summary judgment the court dropped all charges against Mike and DF Ingredients.
In order to keep the suit going for its harassment value, Armstrong Teasdale withdrew its claim against me
for damages, as well as its claim that Interfood had something to do with setting up my web-site.
In an effort to strengthen its position in this suit Armstrong Teasdale filed for a Trademark registration in the
US [Application No. 77747639] claiming that the Dutch have been using this mark in the US for many years,
when in fact the Shareholders agreement gives that exclusive right to Interfood, Inc., Indiana.
I opposed that application, of course [Opposition No. 91192745] indicating among other things that:
"A federal court judge in the US District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, in Case No.
4:08-cv-00085, Interfood Holding BV vs Larry Rice, ruled that as a matter of law, the word "interfood" is not
inherently distinctive and therefor can not be protected... he found this in part based on 20,000 hits when
googling "interfood"."
At Teasdale's request, both the Domain-case brought against me, and Teasdale's request for registration of
"interfood", are on hold pending the outcome of the Interfood v Larry Rice case in Franklin County MO.