BETWEEN

1. The defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraphs
eight(8) and nine(9)
of the statement of claim.

2. The defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraphs
one(1) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l),
two(2), three(3), four(4), five(5), seven(7), eleven(11),
thirteen(13), fifteen(15), sixteen(16), seventeen(17), eighteen(18), nineteen(19), twenty(20), twenty one(21), twenty two(22),
twenty three(23), twenty four(24), and twenty five(25),
; of the statement of claim.

3. The defendants have no knowledge of the allegations contained in paragraphs
(six(6), ten(10), twelve(12), and fourteen(14)
of the statement of claim.

4.Material facts relied upon by way of defence

1) The defendants deny all allegations claimed by the limited partnership, " toronto.com" as being both frivolous and vexatious. Statements throughout both their claim and their motion are misleading, deceptive, and fraught with lies.

2)Like fingerprints, all web address locations are inherently unique. The Toronto2 Internet Community centre is located at the internet address (or "URL" which means "Universal Resource Locator") www.Toronto2.com. Our branded identity and image which appears many times throughout our website pages is the catch-word, "Toronto2", as in, "Toronto2 Forums", "Get in 2 Toronto2", and "The Toronto2 web community". Our branded identity, unlike the plaintiff's, is not tied to the ".com" extension. Our entirely distinct image is an identity and a personality beyond simply being our location on the internet. The plaintiff's website, however, does not enjoy this luxury. Due to the fact of their "absolute" appropriation of a world famous city's proper name they are forever tied to branding their website,"toronto.com". It will never stand on it's own identity in the same manner that other websites such as Yahoo, Ebay, Amazon, and Toronto2 can, and do.

3) Surfers will never be confused into visiting the Toronto2 website by default.



(a) Visitors need to have prior knowledge as to the URL www.Toronto2.com. The name "Toronto2" is a rare and unusual combination of alpha-numerical symbols that one will know only if one has been informed. No one is just going to "key in" Toronto2 by chance.

(b) However the website located at the URL www.toronto.com gets all sorts of traffic from our city, our country, and the world, that are potentially very confused as to the nature of the website. Is it "the" city website, wholly representative of Toronto, or simply a proprietorship that went to the highest bidder to do with what they will? People the world over simply key in the globally famous proper name for the city of Toronto, without any extension whatsoever, to arrive at the Toronto Star's and the Yellow Pages' "veiled" commercial enterprise. Modern browser software automatically assumes the ".com " extension because manufacturers have recognized, and responded to, the fact that the ".com environment" has become the destination of choice for the global village.


4)The moniker that the plaintiffs use, "All you need to know about T.O". defines their service. Similarly our moniker, "Toronto's Internet Community Centre" defines the very different services of Toronto2, leaving no possibility for confusion.


(a) Toronto2 is an online forum for personal dialogue and community interactivity. We offer services similar to "ivillage" (found at the web address www.ivillage.com) and "Geocities"(found at the web address www.Geocities.com). These types of internet environments are known as "web communities". The Toronto2 web community is an open source, "service orientated" initiative in the highest sense of the term.



(b)Whereas the toronto.com "City Search" website is a "formula" newspaper site similar to the Boston Globe's, "boston.com" (found at www.boston.com). Before the plaintiff's purchased the web address www.toronto.com (from the original owner of the registration) the website was known as Toronto Star City Search and could be found at www.starcitysearch.com. It was quite simply renamed. Even today one can key in starcitysearch.com and they will arrive at the toronto.com website. The third partner in the plaintiff's limited partnership is City Search Inc., a California Corporation that operates specifically through these types of search directory websites. The website "toronto.com" is a privately owned proprietorship promoting the specific agendas of their organizations, their favourite affiliates, and those whom they call "third party advertisers" and "independent contractors".


5) The look of the trademark designs is entirely different.


(a) Toronto2 uses the colours light blue and dark blue throughout the website and in its logos. These colours are commonly associated with the city of Toronto, a fact well known to the people that reside in the region. The capitalization of the first letter " T " is the way we address the site (as in "www.Toronto2.com"), our email services (as in "webmaster@Toronto2.com") and our trademark branding (as in "Toronto2's Email Services"). This dignifies the name as is its due, as a proper place name. The progressive nature of community and communication we recognize by italicizing the logo. We "extrude the logo" to give it feeling and atmosphere. Our moniker is written above our web address, making it evident to anyone what service we offer and where we offer it.

(b) Whereas toronto.com utilizes the formula newspaper colours, "black and white", in their trademark logos, and throughout their website. They have extensively branded their name beginning with a lower case " t "(as in "toronto.com") that always includes the web extension, ".com". The presentation of the website is "newspaper-like" in appearance and application. Visitor activities are solitary and mentally orientated. People "use" the website to search for information. Their moniker, "All you need to know about T.O." they place below their web address. The letters are flat, and they are not italicized.



6)These claims are also frivolous in light of the fluidic nature of the world wide web. There are now more than forty registered names beginning with the word "Toronto" that also include the domain extension ".com". As well there are hundreds of other variations on the Toronto theme registered at the "whois.internic" database accessible through Network Solutions Inc. ( found at the web address " rs.internic.net "). It is logical to assume that those who register a domain have every intention of building a site at their registered web address. With 100,000 ".com's" being registered each day there will surely be many more websites specifically developed to service the Greater Toronto Area. Website owners will undoubtedly want Torontonians to be able to identify with their local focus by including variations of the city name. Do the plaintiffs really intend to sue everyone?

7)The Defendants denyall allegations of passing off its wares and services as those of the plaintiff. The defendants do however admit to serving generally the same population, yet in entirely different ways. We have no intention, nor have we ever had, even so much as a thought of passing off our services as those of toronto.com. Toronto2 is original in both concept and presentation. It is in fact the "flagship" of a nation-wide network of community centres that we have called,"The Canada2 Network" ( located at www.Canada2.net ).

8) The Defendants also deny all allegations of copyright infringement.


(a) The defendants do however admit to providing links to Toronto area websites as is commonly done by many other websites that 'try' to serve the Toronto area. Website links are generally appreciated by the destination website. The links in question were in fact to attractions such as Casa Loma and the Shoe Museum. "Every website" has a links page to pertinent websites. We are certainly no different in this respect.

(b) Furthermore the plaintiffs were well aware, and have since verified, that any links in question were promptly removed on receipt of the cease and desist letter of May 21st 1999, in keeping with the accordances and principles of "Net-etiquette". The overreaction of toronto.com was totally uncalled for especially in light of the fact that they had known, and have verified, that the website was not open to the public until June 29th 1999, and that these pages were merely development templates for our volunteers to work with. We devoted the entire front section to making that clear to everyone.


9) The Defendants also deny the allegation that the plaintiffs have suffered irreparable harm. A site receiving ninety-six thousand ("96,000) pageviews per day" has nothing to fear from a small community forum that to date has received on average five (5) visitors per day. On the other hand, serious damage that may in fact be irreparable has been inflicted upon our fledgling organization because of these very aggressive actions by the plaintiff.

Date: August 19, 1999