GR OPCO, LLC v. Eleven IP Holdings, LLC et al, No. 1:2022cv24119 - Document 99 (S.D. Fla. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD COUNTERCLAIM (TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT UNDER FLORIDA LAW) AND DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST COUNTERCLAIM (FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT). Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 11/20/2023. See attached document for full details. (dyg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UN ITED STATES D ISTRICT C OU RT FOR TH E SOUTH ERN D ISTRICT OF FLO RIDA M iam iD ivision Case N um ber:22-24119-C IV -M OR EN O G R OPCO ,LLC, Plaintiff, V S. ELEV EN Ip H O LD IN G s,LLc ,G M ssy CREEK LLc,and cs IR w m LLc, D efendants. O RD ER G M N TIN G M O TIO N TO D ISM ISS TH IRD C O U N TE R CLA IM (TM DEM ARK INFRINGEM ENT UNDER FLORIDA LAm AND DENYING M OTION TO DISM ISS FIRST COUNTERCLM M (FEDEM L TRADEM ARK INFRINGEM ENT) TH IS CAU SE cam e beforethe Courtupon GR Opco,LLC'SM otion to D ism issEleven IP Holdings,LLC'SFirstandThird Counterclaim s.Forthereasonssetforth below,theCourtdenies themotionto dismissandmotionformoredefinitestatementonthefirstcounterclaim (trademark infringementinviolation ofSection 32 ofLanham Act,15U.S.C.j 1114),butgrantsthemotion todismissthethirdcounterclaim (trademarkinfringementinviolationofFla.Stat.j495.131.). FA CT S GR OPCO ownsthe E 1IEV EN brand and E1IEV EN Club in M iam i,Florida. M ore than GR OPCO, LLC v. Eleven IP Holdings, LLC et al 6yearsago,GR OPCO applied forand wasgranted afederaltradem ark registration foruse ofits Doc. 99 <IEIIEVEN''mark in connection withproviding nightclubandotherservices(i.e.,restaurantand bar services,selwing of food and drinks at a nightclub,providing tem porary accom m odation at hotel). ln additionto owning and usingtheEIIEVEN mark,GR OPCO ownsand licensestwo additionalStEleven''m arks. First,GR O PCO owns the GtEleven 11111''brand.W hich is used for a Dockets.Justia.com hotelin Texas.ThewebsitefortheEleven 11111hasbeen onlinesincelate2010.Second,GR OPCO ow nsthe çsEleventh A venueH otel''brand,w hich is aD enverhotel. The Eleventh Avenue H otel's w ebsite hasbeen online since A ugust2011. ELEVEN IP ownsand operatesthe website www.elevenexperience.com,the dom ain for whichELEVEN IP registered in October2011.ELEVEN IP offerscustom erstheabilityto reselwe stays at rem ote locations in private hom es,and to book excursions, such as slciing or fishing. ELEV EN IP has m ade severalfilings with the U .S.Tradem ark O ffice in w hich it has claim ed, based on itswebsiteuse,thatitoperatesluxury hotels,canying thennm e SCELEVEN''. On April 2011,ELEV EN IP applied for a tradem ark registration num ber for operating hotels tm der the (EELEVEN '''m ark. O n N ovem ber 2012, ELEV EN P - in pursuance of a federal tradem ark registration- stated to theU.S.Trademark Office thatELEVEN IP began providing luxury hotel accom modationsundertheELEVEN m arkson Novem ber11,2011.ELEVEN IP also statedthat itbegan using the ELEV EN m ark on N ovem ber 11,2011,to provide t'travelagency services''and to (çarrangleq''and lscoordinate''excursions.On December25,2012,theU.S.Trademark Office issued ELEVEN 1P'strademark (s<subjectTrademark Registration'')underU.S.Registration Nlzm ber4265159. GR OPCO allegesthatELEVEN IP doesnotope 'ratehotels,butratheroffer booldng andtravelagency services. In January 2021, G R OPCO nnnounced plans to build tw o E llEv EN -branded condom inium tow ers acrossfrom itsE 1IEV EN nightclub. Constnzction on the firsttow erbegan in N ovem ber 2021,and tm its in the second tow er are being offered for sale atpre-construction prices. ln suppol' tofGR O PCO 'S condom inium plans,GR O PCO filed applicationsw ith the U .S. Tradem ark Office seeking to coveruse ofthe E 1IEV EN m ark w ith condom inium -related selwes (e.g.,condominium management,réalestatedevelopment,rentalofrealestate,andswimmingpool management). TheseapplicationswerefiledbetweenApril2020andAugust2020.Thefirstof GR OPCO'Strademark applicationswaspublishedintheTrademark Office'sOfhcialGazettein January 2022. In M arch 2022,ELEV EN IP sentG R OPCO a cease-and-desistletter,dem anding thatGR OPCO abandon any planned use ofitsEIIEVEN m ark relating to the servicescovered by GR OPCO 'S tradem ark applications. lf G R O PCO refused to com ply,ELEVEN IP w arned that it wouldseek injunctivereliefanddamagesin coul't.Twomonthsaflersendingthedemand letter, ELEVEN IP sled apetitionwith theU .S.Tradem ark Offceseeking to canceloneofGR OPCO'S trademark registrations. Over the following m onths, ELEVEN IP initiated five additional adm inistrativeproceedingsagainstGR O PCO . OnJune30,2022,ELEVEN IP objectedagaintoGR OPCO'SuseoftheEIIEVEN mark and w arned ofa potentialinfringem entlaw suitagainstGR OPCO . G R O PCO then instituted the instantcase againstELEVEN lP,seeking declaratory reliefand judicialresolution aboutGR O PCO 'S rightto continueto use itsE 1IEV EN m ark in its desired w ays. GR OPCO filed its Complaint,asse/ing againstDefendants three counts:declaratory judgmentofnon-infringementandnounfaircompetition (Count1);rectification oftheFederal TrademarkRegister(Count2);andunfaircompetitionunderfederal1aw (Count3).ELEVEN IP soughtto dism issCount2,which the Courtdenied. GRO OPCO movesto dismissELEVEN 1P'sfirstcounterclaim (trademark infringement underLanham Act),arguingthatELEVEN 1P'sAmorphousM arksincludeallegedcommon law rights in tradem m'ks not covered by a federaltradem ark registration. G R O PCO also m oves to dismissELEVEN 1P'sthird counterclaim (trademark infringementunderFlorida Statute)with prejudicebecausefiling aclaim fortrademarkinfringementtmderFla.Stat.j495.001requiresa Florida-issued tradem ark,w hich ELEV EN IP lacks.l STA N DA R D O F R EV IEW a. StandardformotionstodismissunderRule12(b)(6) lndeciding aRule 12(b)(6)motiontodismissforfailuretostateaclaim theCourt considersonly thefourcornersofthecomplaint.A coul'tm ustacceptastruethefactsasset forth in thecomplaint. ''To sulwiveam otion to dism iss,plaintiffsmustdo morethan m erely statelegal conclusionsy''instead plaintiffsm ust''allege som e specific factualbasis forthose conclusions or facedismissaloftheirdaims.''Jacksonv.Bellsouth Telecomms.,372F.3d 1250,1263(11thCir. 2004).W henrulingonamotiontodismiss,acourtmustview thecomplaintin thelightmost favorabletotheplaintiffand accepttheplaintiffswell-pleaded factsastrue.SeeSt.Joseph' s Hosp.,Inc.v.Hosp.Corp.ofuqm.,795F.2d948,953(11thCir.1986).Thistenet,however,does notapplytolegalconclusions.SeeAshcrojtv.lqbal,556U.S.662,129S.Ct.1937,1949,173 L.Ed.2d868(2009).M oreover,''gwjhilelegalconclusionscanprovidetheframework ofa complaint,theymustbesupportedbyfactualallegations.''Id at1950.Those''gtlactual allegationsmustbeenough to raisearightto reliefabovethe speculativelevelon theasstunption thata1lofthe com plaint's allegations are tnze.'' BellAtl.Corp.v.Twom bly,550 U .S.544,545, 127S.Ct.1955,167L.Ed.2d929(2007).Inshort,thecomplaintmustnotmerely allege lGR OPCO also m ovesforam oredefinitestatem entastothecounterclaim to detenninehow andwhatitis purportedly infringing so itm ay respond appropriately. 4 m isconduct,butmustdem onstratethatthepleaderisentitled to relief SeeIqbal,129 S.Ct.at D ISCU SSIO N GR OPCO requeststhisCourttodismisswithprejudicecounterclaim oneandthree,and orderELEV EN IP to re-plead itsfirstcounterclaim w ith a m ore definite statem entto which G R O PCO can respond. The Courtw illaddresseach ofthe three requests. a. FirstCounterclaim (lnfringem entofRegisteredTrademarltsunderSection 32of theLanham Act,15U.STC.j 1114) GR OPCO arguesthatELEVEN IP'stirstcotmterclaim failsto m eetthepleading standardoftrademark infringementtmder15USC j1114.Toproperly stateaclaim for trademark infringementunder15USC j1114(1)(a),G$aplaintiffmustallegethat:(1)themarkat issuehaspriority,(2)thedefendantusedthemarkin commerce,and(3)thedefendant'smarkis likely to cause consum erconfusion.''Cole-parmerInstrumentCo.LLC v.Pro.Labs.,Inc.,568 F.Supp.3d 1307,1315(S.D.Fla.2021), .seealsoInt' lCosmeticsExck,Inc.,v.GapardisHealth drBeauty,Inc.,303F.3d 1242 (11thCir.2002). ELEV EN IP adequately allegeseach ofthe three elem ents. ELEV EN IP allegesthatit had priorrightsw ith respectto GR O PCO,and identifiesthe federally registered tradem arksthat itowns,includingtherelevantservices.(Colmtercl.! 19($ûlnrecognition ofElevenIP'srights, theUnitedStatesPatentandTrademark Offce(CGUSPTO'')hasgrantedittrademarkregistrations forvariousELEV EN M arks...A ttached hereto as ExhibitB are copies ofEleven 1P'stradem ark registrations.''l.l;(Countercl.!(27 :$On October15,2019,GR fileda(sstatementofUse,'' claim ing afirst-use-in-comm erce dateofM arch 1,2014 fora11selwices,including Iproviding temporary accommodationathotel'(theçsAllegedHotelServices''l.).ELEVEN IP assertsthat itsapplicationsforsuchtrademarkswereacceptedandregisteredbytheUSPTO.(Id.!! 19-20, 31,59.) Finally,ELEVEN IP assertsthatGR'splanneduseofE1IEVEN inconnectionwith hoteland accomm odation servicesislikely to causeconfusion with ELEVEN lP'spriorrights. (Id.!62.). GR OPCO doesnotarguethatELEVEN IP failed to allegeany ofthethree elem ents,but instead arguesthatELEVEN IP alleges(çAm orphousM arks''thatincludecom m on 1aw rightsin tradem arks notcovered by a federaltradem ark registration. Further,GR OPCO statesthat ELEVEN 1P'sfirstcounterclaim doesnot(1)identifytheregistrationsE1IEVEN puportedly infringesnor(2)identifythegoodsorservicesELEVEN IP allegesarethebasisforEIIEVEN'S jurportedinfringement.However,tosulwiveamotiontodismiss,itisnotevennecessaryfora plaintiffto identify precisely which ofadefendant'sproductsallegedly infringeaplaintiffs trademark.SeeIconH ealth dnFitness,Inc.v.IFITNESS Inc.,2012U .S.Dist.LEXIS 46824. Courtshave found a tradem ark claim to be sufficiently pled w hen the com plaintidentified the plaintiffstradem arksandpointed to ''specificwebsiteswith theinfringingtradem ark usage''but stoppedshortofidentifyingaspecificimageorproduct.fJ.(citinglber# ctl0,Inc.v.Cybernet Ventures,Inc.,167F.Supp.2d 1114,1122(C.D.Cal.zoolltholdingthecomplaint'sallegations werenot''hopelesslyvague''andputtheDefendantonnoticeofthenatureoftheclaimsl).ln ELEVEN 1P'sComplaint,''E1IEVEN ''isidentified asthe iningingm ark being used by theGR OPCO.(Countercl.!39(Cgfjurther,likeElevenlP,GR alsopromotesitsplannedhoteltllrough . socialm edia,including on its Instagram page and Y ouTube channelon w hich the lnfringing E1IEVEN M arks,aswellastheterm Cç11,''areprominently featured'').Atthisstage,GR OPCO hassufficientnoticeofwhatthissuitisabout:ELEVEN IP ownstheELEVEN tradem arks, ELEV EN P eallegesthatGR O CPO know ingly used infringing m arks,and thatthisuse islikely to confuseconsum ers.ELEVEN IP haspled enough to stateaplausibleclaim oftrademark infringem entundertheLanham Act.Accordingly,the M otion to dism issELEVEN 1P'sfrst counterclaim isdenied. UnderRule12(e),''ga)partymaymoveforamoredefinitestatementofapleadingto which aresponsivepleading isallowedbutwhich isso vagueorambiguousthattheparty cannot reasonablypreparearesponse.''Fed.R.Civ.P.12(e).A courtwillgrantsuchamotionwhere ''a plaintiffsturbid com plaintis so am biguoussuch thatitis 'virtually im possible to know w hich allegationsoffactareintendedtosupportwhichclaimts)forrelief.'''Zyburov.NCSPIUS,Inc., No.8:12-cv-1065-T-30TBM ,2012U.S.Dist.LEXIS 86741,at*2(M .D.Fla.June22,2012) (quotingAndersonv.Dist.Bd ofTrs.Ofcent.Fla.Cvry.Coll.,77F.3d364,366(11thCir. 1996)).''Thebasisforgrantingamotionformoredefinitestatementislmintelligibility,notlack of detail;as long as the defendantis able to respond,even ifonly w ith sim ple denial,in good faith,withoutprejudice,thecomplaintisdeemedsufficient.''SEC v.DigitalLightwave,Inc., 196P.R.D.698,700(M .D.Fla.2000).M otionsforamoredefnitestatementaregenerally disfavored in thefederalsystem in lightoftheliberalpleading and discovery requirem entsofthe FederalRules.''Nature' sHealth andNutvition,lnc.v.Nunez,2008 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 80971, 2008W L 4346329*1(S.D.Fla.zoo8ltcitingBB in Tech.Co.,Lftf v.JAF,LLC.,242F.R.D. 632,640(S.D.Fla.2007)). GR OPCO also arguesthatELEV EN 1P's firstcounterclaim needs a m ore definite statem ent. ln N ul jez,the courtheld thatam ore definite statem entw asunnecessary in a 7 tradem ark disputein which thecomplaintalleged thattheplaintiffhad ''acquired quperiorrights in lzis'N UN EZ m arks,'and thatN ature H ealth's brand 'EPHD RA SIM 'eithersoundslike orw as derived from lettersorsound elem entsof,one orm oreofNunez'sbrands.''Xzfgcz,2008U.S. Dist.LEXIS 80971,2008 W L 4346329 at*1.The courtfound thoseallegationswere ''notso vagueand ambiguousthattheplaintiffcnnnotbe expected to respond in goodfaith orwithout Prejudice.''ld. LikeNuûez,theELEVEN IP haspledthatitownstheregistration totheELEVEN trademark andthattheGR OPCO'Sjuniortrademark,E1IEVEN,causesalikelihoodofconfusionwith ELEVEN IP'sseniortradem arks. ELEVEN IP haspled with m oredetailandpartioularity than thedefendantinNuzez. ELEVEN IP'scom plaintisclearenough toputGR OPCO on notice of thenatureofthe claim ,tradem ark infringem entviolation,and the specifictradem ark atissue,GR OPCO 'SE 1IEV EN m ark. There is enough infonuation to allow GR O PCO to form ulate a response. A ccordingly,the m otion fora m ore definite statem entis denied. b. Third Counterclaim (lnfringementofRegisteredTradem arksunderSection 495.001,Et.Seq-,FloridaStatutes) GR OPCO arguesthatbecause ELEV EN IP doesnothave a Florida-issued tradem ark registration,dismissalwithprejudiceisproper.Theelçmentsofaclaim fortrademark infringementunderFlorida1aw areasfollows:(1)plaintiffhasavalidtrademarkregistered underFloridalaw;(2)defendantusedanidenticalorsimilarmarkin commercewithout plaintiffsconsent;(3)defendants'usepostdatesplaintiffsuse;and(4)defendants'useislikelyto cause confusion. H aneys Cc./J,Inc.v.Haney' sSmokehouse,lnc.,2004U.S.Dist.LEXIS 24959 citingFla.Stat.j495.131;GreatS.Bankv.FirstS.Bank,625So.2d463,466-67n.4(Fla.1993) 8 (citingFla.Stat.j495.131andstatingthatfederalcase1aw interpretingfederaltrademarklaw is tobegiven ''duçconsideration andgreatweight''wheninterpretingFlorida'strademarklawsl; seealso InternationalCosmeticsExch.,Inc.v.GapardisHealth drBeauty,Inc.,303 F.3d 1242, 1248(11th Cir.2002);Davidoff& Cie,S.A.v.PLD Internat' lCorp.,263F.3d 1297,1300-01 (11thCir.2001);PlanetaryM otion,Inc.v.Techsplosion,Inc.,261F.3d 1188,1193(11thCir. 2001);M cDonald' sCorp.v.Robertson,147F.3d 1301,1307(11th Cir.1998). lfELEVEN IP doesnothaveaFlorida-issued tradem ark,itcannotmeetthefirstelem ent ofa claim fortradem ark ingingem entunderFlorida law .ELEVEN IP doeswnotreply stating that GR OPCO ismistaken (thatitactually doeshaveaFlorida-issuedtrademark),butinsteadargues thatbecauseitstatesaclaim fortrademark infringementundertheLanham Act,ittransitively also statesaclaim underFlorida laF .ELEVEN IP goeson to citecasesthatholdthatthe analysis ofFlorida statutory and com m on 1aw claim softradem ark infringem entand unfair com petition isthe sam e asunderfederaltradem ark infringem entclaim . lnvestacorp,Inc.v. ArabianInv.Banking Corp.(Investcorp)E.C.,931F.2d 1519,1521(11thCir.1991).TheCourt doesnotdisagree.However,whileitistnzethatCtgcjoul'tsmayuseananalysisoffederal infringem entclaim s as a 'm eastlring stick'in evaluating the m erits ofstate law claim s oflm fair com petition,''itis differentto proceed and bring a claim withoutthe requisite-issued tradem ark itself.SeeSuntreeTechs.,Inc.v.EcosenseInt'l,Inc.,693F.3d 1338,1345(11thCir.2012). In Solid 2l,Inc.v.UlysseN ardin,USA fna,2019 U .S.D ist.LEX IS 227359,the Court encotmtersthis sam e argum ent. There,the plaintiffargued thatthey did notneed a Floridaissued tradem ark because (Cthe legalstandardsforFlorida statutory and com m on 1aw claim s of tradem ark infringem entand unfair com petition''are the sam e. 1d. The Courtfound thatin light ofFlorida'strademarkinfringementstatm e,regardlessofwhetherthestandardsaresimilar(or evenidentical),aplaintiffmustregisteritsmark withtheStateofFloridatohavean actionable Floridastatutory tradem ark infringem entclaim .1d.Further,the courtin Solid 21 found the EleventhCircuitdecisionTally-Ho,Incv.CoastCr?i@.College.Dist,889F.2d 1018,1024 (11th Cir1989)instructive.There,theEleventh Circuitstatedthat,Itgcqommon1aw ownersof unregistered m arks are lim ited to com m on 1aw rem edies in infringem entactions. 1d. The Florida statute also perm its an ''antidilution''claim undersection 495.151. Thisprovision pennitsany trademark owner,whetherregistered orunzegistered,to prohibiteitheranon- competitor'sorcompetitor'suseofasimilarmark ifthereisalikelihoodofinjurytobusiness reputation ordilution ofthem ark'sdistinctive quality.''Accordingly,becauseELEVEN IP did notdisputethe factthatitdoesnothave aregisteredFloridatradem ark,theCourtgrantsGR OPCO 'Srequestto dism iss ELEV EN 1P's tradem ark infringem entcounterclaim broughttmder Florida law . Lastly,ELEVEN IP arguesthatGR OPCO hasnotm etitsburden ofshowing that dismissalwithprejudicewouldbewarranted,andthusevenifitsM otiontoDismiss Counterclaim 3 isgranted,itw ould be an inappropriate rem edy. ELEV EN IP citesto Tequila Watersv.Cityofsunrise,2022U.S.Dist.LEXIS 61862,butthatcasedoesnotf'urthertheir argument.There,thecourtdismissedtheplaintiffsclaim withoutprejudice.Thecourtheldthat iftheplaintiffwasableto allegepriorincidentsto supplem entherclaim ,thepleading standard can bem et. Here,GR OPCO statesthatELEVEN IP doesnothave aFlorida-issued tradem ark. ELEV EN IP islacking a Florida-issued tradem ark. Unlike the plaintiffin W aters,there is no clarification or allegation thatcan rectify the pleading;the factthatitdoes nothave a Florida- issuedtrademarkisfutile.Accordingly,thethirdcounterclaim isdismissedwithprejudice. CO N CLU SIO N A ccordingly, it is O R D ER ED A ND AD JUD G ED that the M otion, is GM N TED IN PA RT AN D D EN IED IN PA RT consistentw ith thisO rder. DONEANDORDEREDinChambersatMiami,Florida,this VV ofNovember 2023. FEDERI .M OREN O D STA TES D ISTRICT JUD G E Copiesfutmishedto: CounselofRecord
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
