Page:Arkansas Lottery Commission v. Alpha Marketing.pdf/9

 trademarks, that the registration of the trademarks was contrary to the law, and that "the registrations should be cancelled." In paragraph 35 of the Commission's answer to the amended complaint, the Commission stated that it “incorporates by reference all defenses and arguments raised in its motion to dismiss the amended complaint and its brief in support of its motion to dismiss." In its brief, the Commission asserted that "[b]ecause the plaintiff’s trademarks are deceptively misdescriptive and are likely to deceive consumers, the plaintiff's trademarks are invalid and should be cancelled."

We hold that the Commission’s answer to the second amended complaint, however, superseded and replaced its two prior answers. While the Commission's answer to the second amended complaint incorporated certain responses it made in its amended answer, it did not incorporate a request for cancellation of the trademarks. This pleading instead superseded all prior answers and established that the Commission relied on and pleaded the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Clearly, in the Commission's answer to the second amended complaint, the Commission raised the defense of sovereign immunity and did not seek affirmative relief.