MGM Signature Complaint

Case 2:08-cv-00753-JCM-LRL Document 1 Filed 06/10/2008 Page 1 of 11
1 MICHAEL J. McCUE (Nevada Bar #6055)

mmccue@lrlaw.com
2 JONATHAN W. FOUNTAIN (Nevada Bar #10351)
jfountain@lrlaw.com
3 LEWIS AND ROCA LLP
3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 600
4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Telephone: (702) 949-8200
5 Fax: (702) 949-8363
6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MGM GRAND HOTEL, LLC, and
7 THE SIGNATURE CONDOMINIUMS, LLC
8
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
11
MGM GRAND HOTEL, LLC, a Nevada
12 limited liability company; and THE
SIGNATURE CONDOMINIUMS, LLC, a
13 Nevada limited liability company,
14 Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT
15 vs.
16
JARRETT I. CURD, an individual,
17
Defendant.
18
19 Plaintiffs MGM GRAND HOTEL, LLC, and THE SIGNATURE CONDOMINIUMS,
20 LLC, for their complaint against JARRETT I. CURD (“Curd”) allege the following.
21 NATURE OF THE CASE
22 Plaintiff The Signature Condominiums, LLC manages a hotel-condominium project
23 known as "The Signature at MGM Grand," located on West Harmon Avenue in Las Vegas,
24 Nevada. Defendant Curd owns units at The Signature at MGM Grand. This action arises from,
25 among other things, Curd’s conduct of passing himself off as the President of The Signature at
26 MGM Grand to cause centralized reservation service providers to remove The Signature at MGM
27 Grand from their reservation systems, Curd's false advertising in connection with rental of units at
Lewis and Roca LLP 28

3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
The Signature at MGM Grand, Curd’s adoption and use of a business name and trademark that is
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
-1- 391697.2
1 confusingly similar to THE SIGNATURE AT MGM GRAND mark, and Curd’s copying and use
2 of Plaintiffs' trade dress on Curd’s web site at <signaturemgmgrandownerssuites.com>. Plaintiffs
3 assert claims for trademark infringement, unfair competition, false advertising, cybersquatting,
4 trade dress infringement, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.
5 Plaintiffs seek damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs.
6 JURISDICTION
7 1. This action arises under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq., and under the
8 statutes and common law of the State of Nevada.
9 2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1121 and 1125
10 and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). This Court has jurisdiction over the state and common law claims under
11 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b), because those claims are joined with substantial and related claims under 15
12 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the state and common
13 law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because those claims are related to claims under this Court’s
14 original jurisdiction and form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United
15 States Constitution.
16 3. This Court has general jurisdiction over Curd because, upon information and
17 belief, he resides in this judicial district and conducts systematic and continuous business in this
18 judicial district. This Court also has specific personal jurisdiction over Curd because he has
19 purposefully directed his conduct at Plaintiffs in Nevada, Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of Curd’s
20 contacts with Nevada, and the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Curd comports with
21 Constitutional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
22 4. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Venue lies in the
23 unofficial southern division of this Court.
24 PARTIES
25 5. Plaintiff MGM Grand Hotel, LLC (“MGM Grand”) is a Nevada limited liability
26 company with its principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada.
27
Suite 600
-2- 391697.2
1 6. The Signature Condominiums, LLC (“The Signature”) is a limited liability
2 company with its principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada.
3 7. Defendant Jarrett I. Curd is an individual doing business under the name “Owners’
4 Suites at Signature MGM Grand.”
5 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
6 8. MGM Grand owns and operates the world famous MGM Grand hotel and casino
7 on the Las Vegas Strip. MGM Grand has been using the MGM GRAND mark since 1973.
8 MGM MIRAGE, the parent of MGM Grand, owns trademark rights in the MGM GRAND mark,
9 including a U.S. federal trademark registration for MGM GRAND for hotel services (U.S. Reg.
10 No. 1,060,488).
11 9. The Signature manages a hotel condominium project known as “The Signature at
12 MGM Grand” (“Signature Property”). MGM Grand owns a U.S. federal trademark registration
13 for THE SIGNATURE AT MGM GRAND and design mark (U.S. Reg. No. 3372217) (“The
14 Signature Trademark”).
15 10. The Signature Property is comprised of three hotel condominium towers
16 including, among other things, lobbies, pools, restaurants, and a fitness facility. The individual
17 hotel condominium units at the Signature Property are privately owned. Owners of the individual
18 units can, under certain circumstances, make their units available for booking as hotel rooms in
19 the MGM MIRAGE Central Reservation Service through which MGM MIRAGE properties make
20 their hotel room inventory available for booking. Such rooms are available for booking through
21 Global Distribution Service (“GDS”) providers, such as Sabre, Amadeus, Apollo, Worldspan and
22 Pegasus. If unit owners make their units available for booking through GDS, The Signature
23 manages aspects of the guests’ stay at the Signature Property, including handling the check in and
24 check out process and providing maintenance and maid service. The Signature and the unit
25 owners share in the revenue generated by such bookings.
26 11. Instead of making their units available for booking through the MGM MIRAGE
27 Central Reservation Service, the unit owners at the Signature Property can make their
Lewis and Roca LLP 28 condominiums available for booking through independent means, provided that they pay
Suite 600
-3- 391697.2
1 applicable transient service fees.
2 12. Upon information and belief, Curd independently offers units at the Signature
3 Property for booking under the mark "Owners Suites at Signature MGM Grand" ("Infringing
4 Mark"). The Infringing Mark is confusingly similar to The Signature Trademark and is likely to
5 confuse consumers as to the source or origin of Curd's services or as to an affiliation or
6 relationship with The Signature or as to The Signature's sponsorship or approval of Curd's
7 services.
8 13. Curd has registered and is using the domain name
9 <signaturemgmgrandownerssuites.com>. This domain name is confusingly similar to The
10 Signature Trademark and is likely to confuse consumers as to the source or origin of Curd's
11 services or as to an affiliation or relationship with The Signature or as to The Signature's
12 sponsorship or approval of Curd's services.
13 14. Curd is operating a web site accessible at <signaturemgmgrandownerssuites.com>
14 that emulates the look and feel of the official web site for The Signature located at
15 <signaturemgmgrand.com>, including, but not limited to, the color, interface, layout, photography
16 and information. Curd’s web site also appears to contain content, including photographs and
17 backgrounds, from the official web site. Curd's web site is likely to confuse consumers as to the
18 source or origin of Curd's services or as to an affiliation or relationship with The Signature or as
19 to The Signature's sponsorship or approval of Curd's services.
20 15. In addition to causing confusion among consumers, Curd has engaged in a
21 persistent pattern of intentional and malicious conduct to injure The Signature and deceive
22 consumers. On or about November 26, 2007, without Plaintiffs’ knowledge or consent, Curd sent
23 a letter to GDS partners on letterhead bearing The Signature Trademark. Upon information and
24 belief, Curd fabricated the letterhead by cutting and pasting The Signature Mark from another
25 source. In the letter, Curd stated, in pertinent part:

Please be advised that effective immediately, The Signature at MGM Grand,
26 Las Vegas, Nevada will no longer be represented by MGM/Mirage (MV)
27 Central Reservation Services. This hotel will now be represented by InnLink
Central Reservation Services as Owners Suites at Signature MGM.
Suite 600
-4- 391697.2
1 In the letter, Curd provided MGM MIRAGE’s GDS property codes numbers and chain code to
2 enable the GDS providers to change these codes. Curd signed the letter as “President” of The
3 Signature.
4 16. Upon information and belief, on December 5, 2007, InnLink, who Curd designated
5 as the new representative for the Signature Property, informed GDS partners to replace the
6 MGM/MIRAGE Central Reservation Services codes with codes for InnLink.
7 17. As the direct result of Curd’s and InnLink’s conduct, travel agents and others
8 could not use the GDS systems to book rooms at the Signature Property.
9 18. After The Signature learned from travel agents that they could not use the GDS
10 systems to book rooms at the Signature Property, The Signature investigated and determined that
11 Curd and InnLink had directed the GDS providers to change the codes for the Signature Property.
12 19. On December 21, 2007, after learning of Curd’s conduct, counsel for Plaintiffs
13 sent a cease and desist letter to Curd demanding, among other things, that Curd: (a) cease any
14 attempt to change the codes for the Signature Property in the GDS system; (b) disable the web site
15 located at <signaturemgmgrandownerssuites.com>; (c) transfer ownership of the
16 <signaturemgmgrandownerssuites.com> domain name to MGM Grand; (d) cease conducting
17 business as “Owners Suites at Signature MGM Grand” or any other trade name or trademark that
18 contains the MGM Grand or The Signature Trademark; (e) cease using any of Plaintiffs’
19 copyrighted works relating to the Signature Property; and (f) provide counsel with all originals
20 and copies of any materials reflecting Curd’s use of any of Plaintiffs’ intellectual property,
21 including, but not limited to, business cards, stationery, brochures, and photographs.
22 20. After not receiving a response from Curd, on December 27, 2007, counsel for
23 Plaintiffs sent another copy of the cease and desist letter to Curd and demanded a response by
24 December 28, 2007.
25 21. On December 29, 2007, Curd finally responded. Curd denied the allegations in the
26 cease and desist letter and claimed that InnLink’s changing of the reservation codes was a
27 “misunderstanding.” Curd indicated that he would confer with counsel regarding use of The
Lewis and Roca LLP 28 Signature Trademark. Curd ignored Plaintiffs’ other demands set forth in the cease and desist
Suite 600
-5- 391697.2
1 letter.
2 22. Shortly thereafter, Curd deactivated the web site located at
3 <signaturemgmgrandownerssuites.com>. Thus, it appeared that Curd had ceased his infringing
4 conduct. Since that time, however, The Signature has received additional complaints about Curd
5 from guests of the Signature Property.
6 23. On or about January 20, 2008, The Signature received a complaint from a guest
7 who rented a unit at the Signature Property from Curd. Curd represented to the guest that he
8 would cover all charges for services, including housekeeping services, during the customer's stay.
9 However, Curd did not, in fact, cover the charges and the guest was charged for housekeeping
10 services. The guest complained about how Curd's practices do not "look good" for The Signature.
11 24. In May 2008, The Signature received a complaint from a customer who had
12 booked a unit at the Signature Property from a "Jonathan Jared." The Signature was not able to
13 find any record of the reservation. Through investigation, The Signature learned that the unit at
14 issue was owned by Curd. Curd had allegedly offered the unit for booking under the false name
15 "Jonathan Jared." Upon information and belief, Curd is also offering to book units of a type that
16 he does not own. Upon information and belief, Curd is booking units without paying the fees
17 required by The Signature.
18 25. On or about May 27, 2008, Plaintiffs learned that Curd has reactivated the
19 <signaturemgmgrandownerssuites.com> web site and that Curd has recommenced using the
20 Infringing Mark.
21 26. On May 29, 2008, a guest arrived at the Signature Property and informed The
22 Signature that he had booked a unit through Curd’s web site. The Signature had no record of the
23 reservation and Curd’s unit was already booked.
24 27. Curd's conduct has injured and is likely to continuing injuring the goodwill and
25 reputation of The Signature.
26 COUNT I
(Trademark Infringement under
27 the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114)
Lewis and Roca LLP 28 28. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth in each of the preceding paragraphs
Suite 600
-6- 391697.2
1 as if fully set forth herein.
2 29. Curd has reproduced, counterfeited, copied, and/or colorably imitated The
3 Signature Trademark without the authorization or consent of Plaintiffs.
4 30. Curd has used and/or is using in commerce reproductions, counterfeits, copies, or
5 colorable imitations of The Signature Trademark in connection with the sale, offering for sale,
6 distribution, or advertising of Curd’s services in a manner that is likely to cause confusion, or to
7 cause mistake, or to deceive.
8 31. As the result of Curd’s conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to
9 suffer, irreparable injury and damages.
10
COUNT II
11 (Unfair Competition
under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
12
32. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
13
forth herein.
14
33. Curd’s use in commerce of the Infringing Mark is likely to cause confusion, cause
15
mistake or deceive as to Curd’s affiliation, connection, or association with Plaintiffs or as to the
16
sponsorship or approval of Curd’s services or commercial activities by Plaintiffs.
17
34. As the result of Curd’s conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to
18
suffer, irreparable injury and damages.
19
COUNT III
20 (False Advertising
under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c))
21
22
forth herein.
23
36. Curd has made false representations of fact regarding his services in interstate
24
commerce in commercial advertising and promotion of their services and commercial activities.
25
26
27
Suite 600
-7- 391697.2
COUNT IV
1 (Cybersquatting
under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d))
2
3
forth herein.
4
39. Curd has registered, trafficked in, and/or used a domain name that is confusingly
5
similar to and/or dilutive of The Signature Trademark, which was distinctive and/or famous at the
6
time Curd registered the < signaturemgmgrandownerssuites.com > domain name.
7
40. Upon information and belief, Curd has or has had a bad faith intent to profit
8
therefrom.
9
10
11
12 COUNT V
(Trade Dress Infringement)
13
14
forth herein.
15
43. Plaintiffs’ trade dress in and to the advertising for the Signature Property is
16
inherently distinctive or has acquired secondary meaning in the market.
17
44. Curd’s use of trade dress that is confusingly similar to The Signature trade dress in
18
connection with Curd’s services or commercial activities without Plaintiffs’ authorization is likely
19
to cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers who will falsely believe that Curd’s
20
services or commercial activities are affiliated with, or endorsed by Plaintiffs, when, in fact, there
21
is no affiliation between Curd and the Plaintiffs.
22
23
24 COUNT VI
(Common Law Trademark Infringement
25 and Unfair Competition)
26 46. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
27 forth herein.
Lewis and Roca LLP 28 47. Plaintiffs have acquired common law rights in and to The Signature Trademark.
Suite 600
-8- 391697.2
1 48. Curd’s use of a mark that is confusingly similar to The Signature Trademark in
2 connection with Curd’s services or commercial activities without Plaintiffs’ authorization is likely
3 to cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers who will falsely believe that Curd’s
4 services or commercial activities are affiliated with, or endorsed by Plaintiffs, when, in fact, there
5 is no affiliation between Curd and the Plaintiffs.
6 49. As the result of Curd’s conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to
7 suffer, irreparable injury and damages.
8 COUNT VII
(Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)
9
10
forth herein.
11
51. Plaintiffs had actual and prospective economic relationships with GDS providers
12
and guests who wished to book rooms at The Signature Property.
13
52. Curd committed acts intended or designed to disrupt Plaintiffs’ prospective
14
economic advantage arising from such relationships.
15
53. Curd’s actions disrupted Plaintiffs’ prospective economic advantage.
16
54. Curd had no legal right, privilege or justification for his conduct.
17
18
19
20 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
21 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:
22 A. Grant temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Curd
23 from:
24 (1) Instructing, requesting, directing, facilitating, or causing any third party to
25 change any information, designations or codes pertaining to Plaintiffs in
26 any Global Distribution Service or reservation system or otherwise
27 interfering with Plaintiffs’ ability to generate bookings through such
Lewis and Roca LLP 28 services;

Suite 600
-9- 391697.2
1 (2) Using the Infringing Mark or any mark that contains or is confusingly
2 similar to The Signature Mark;
3 (3) Registering, using or owning the <signaturemgmgrandownerssuites.com>
4 domain name or any domain name that contains or is confusingly similar to
5 The Signature Mark;
6 (4) Using Plaintiffs’ trade dress or any trade dress that is confusingly similar
7 thereto;
8 (5) Passing himself off as President of The Signature at MGM Grand or an
9 officer, director, employee, agent or other representative of Plaintiffs;
10 (6) Making any false or misleading statements in connection with the
11 advertising, marketing, promotional or other commercial activities of his
12 business relating to Plaintiffs, including, but not limited to, double booking
13 units, falsely representing that he is paying for housekeeping services for
14 guests, and using an assumed name;
15 (7) Engaging in any business activities in which he represents or implies that
16 he is affiliated, connected or associated with Plaintiffs or that his
17 commercial activities are approved of or sponsored by Plaintiffs; and
18 (8) Continuing to engage in any of the tortious conduct described in this
19 Complaint.
20 B. Award Plaintiffs their compensatory, punitive, exemplary, statutory, treble, and all
21 other damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
22 D. Award Plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees and costs; and
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
Lewis and Roca LLP 28 ///

Suite 600
-10- 391697.2
1 E. Grant Plaintiffs any other relief that the court deems just and equitable.
2 DATED this 10th day of June, 2008.
3 Respectfully submitted,
4 LEWIS AND ROCA, LLP
5
6 By: /s/
MICHAEL J. McCUE (Nevada Bar #6055)
7 JONATHAN W. FOUNTAIN (Nevada Bar #10351)
8 3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 600
9
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Suite 600
-11- 391697.2
Case 2:08-cv-00753-JCM-LRL Document 1-2 Filed 06/10/2008 Page 1 of 1

MGM Signature Complaint

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

MGM Signature Complaint

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Case 2:08-cv-00753-JCM-LRL Document 1 Filed 06/10/2008 Page 1 of 11

1 MICHAEL J. McCUE (Nevada Bar #6055)

21 NATURE OF THE CASE

22 Plaintiff The Signature Condominiums, LLC manages a hotel-condominium project

Lewis and Roca LLP 28

2 of Plaintiffs' trade dress on Curd’s web site at <signaturemgmgrandownerssuites.com>. Plaintiffs

5 Plaintiffs seek damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs.

8 statutes and common law of the State of Nevada.

21 Constitutional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

23 unofficial southern division of this Court.

26 company with its principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada.

1 6. The Signature Condominiums, LLC (“The Signature”) is a limited liability

2 company with its principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada.

4 Suites at Signature MGM Grand.”

11 9. The Signature manages a hotel condominium project known as “The Signature at

15 10. The Signature Property is comprised of three hotel condominium towers

25 owners share in the revenue generated by such bookings.

1 applicable transient service fees.

5 confuse consumers as to the source or origin of Curd's services or as to an affiliation or

6 relationship with The Signature or as to The Signature's sponsorship or approval of Curd's

8 13. Curd has registered and is using the domain name

9 <signaturemgmgrandownerssuites.com>. This domain name is confusingly similar to The

11 services or as to an affiliation or relationship with The Signature or as to The Signature's

12 sponsorship or approval of Curd's services.

13 14. Curd is operating a web site accessible at <signaturemgmgrandownerssuites.com>

18 source or origin of Curd's services or as to an affiliation or relationship with The Signature or as

19 to The Signature's sponsorship or approval of Curd's services.

20 15. In addition to causing confusion among consumers, Curd has engaged in a

25 source. In the letter, Curd stated, in pertinent part:

6 MGM/MIRAGE Central Reservation Services codes with codes for InnLink.

15 located at <signaturemgmgrandownerssuites.com>; (c) transfer ownership of the

16 <signaturemgmgrandownerssuites.com> domain name to MGM Grand; (d) cease conducting

24 December 28, 2007.

2 22. Shortly thereafter, Curd deactivated the web site located at

3 <signaturemgmgrandownerssuites.com>. Thus, it appeared that Curd had ceased his infringing

5 from guests of the Signature Property.

17 required by The Signature.

23 reservation and Curd’s unit was already booked.

25 reputation of The Signature.

1 as if fully set forth herein.

3 Signature Trademark without the authorization or consent of Plaintiffs.

6 distribution, or advertising of Curd’s services in a manner that is likely to cause confusion, or to

7 cause mistake, or to deceive.

9 suffer, irreparable injury and damages.

5 is no affiliation between Curd and the Plaintiffs.

7 suffer, irreparable injury and damages.

21 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

22 A. Grant temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Curd

24 (1) Instructing, requesting, directing, facilitating, or causing any third party to

25 change any information, designations or codes pertaining to Plaintiffs in

26 any Global Distribution Service or reservation system or otherwise

27 interfering with Plaintiffs’ ability to generate bookings through such

Lewis and Roca LLP 28 services;

2 similar to The Signature Mark;

3 (3) Registering, using or owning the <signaturemgmgrandownerssuites.com>

4 domain name or any domain name that contains or is confusingly similar to

5 The Signature Mark;

8 (5) Passing himself off as President of The Signature at MGM Grand or an

9 officer, director, employee, agent or other representative of Plaintiffs;

10 (6) Making any false or misleading statements in connection with the

11 advertising, marketing, promotional or other commercial activities of his

13 units, falsely representing that he is paying for housekeeping services for

14 guests, and using an assumed name;