DRUG-FIGHTING GROUP CHALLENGES SUIT

SYRACUSE -- A New York-based anti-drug organization says the federal court
in Texas lacks jurisdiction and should dismiss a trademark infringement
lawsuit brought by Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

Asserting jurisdiction in the case "would not be reasonable and would not
comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice," Paul
V. Storm, the attorney representing Dads and Mad Moms Against Drug Dealers,
wrote in a 40-page motion.

The Irving, Texas-based MADD filed a lawsuit last month in federal court in
Dallas, claiming DAMMADD's acronym was confusingly similar and infringed
upon its trademark name.

MADD is a national anti-drunken driving organization with 600 chapters and
two million members or supporters nationwide. It runs educational programs,
helps victims of drunken driving and also operates a Web site.

DAMMADD is an organization started two years ago by Steven Steiner, an
electrician from Tioga Center whose son died of a drug overdose. DAMMADD
runs a Web site that collects anonymous tips about illegal drug activity and
then passes on credible tips to the appropriate police agencies. It has
affiliations with 61 police agencies in 20 states, Steiner said Monday. It
claims 16 convictions from 786 tips.

Storm said Monday that DAMMADD is a New York corporation and that Steiner,
the founder and president, is a New York resident, and neither have
sufficient contacts in Texas to give the federal court in Dallas
jurisdiction in the lawsuit.

DAMMADD's motion papers noted that the organization has no employees or
offices in Texas. It has not solicited any business there nor have any
DAMMADD representatives traveled to Texas to promote the organization's
mission, Storm wrote.

"DAMMADD's contacts, or lack thereof, are not sufficient to confer
jurisdiction in this court. ... Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed,"
Storm wrote U.S. District Judge Jerry Buchmeyer.

If Buchmeyer decides he cannot dismiss the lawsuit, Storm asked that the
court than instead transfer the case to New York. Storm said DAMMADD would
challenge the alleged trademark infringement issue in later motions.

"A substantial response will not be a problem," he said. "This was just not
the appropriate time."

Herbert J. Hammond, the attorney for MADD, declined comment. MADD has 21
days to respond to DAMMADD's request for a dismissal or change of venue.