american airlines v. despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
1/87
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DESPEGAR.COM USA, INC., et al.
Defendants.
DESPEGAR.COM USA, INC.,
Counter-Plaintiff
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.
Counter-Defendant.
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, American Airlines, Inc. (Plaintiff, American Airlines, or American),
brings this second amended complaint against Despegar.com USA, Inc. (Despegar USA),
Travel Reservations SRL (Despegar Uruguay), Despegar.com.ar S.A. (Despegar Argentina),
Decolar.com Ltda. (Despegar Brazil), Despegar.com Chile S.A. (Despegar Chile),
Despegar.com Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Despegar Mexico), Despegar.com Per SAC (Despegar
Peru), Servicios Online 3351 de Venezuela, C.A. (Despegar Venezuela), Despegar Colombia
SAS (Despegar Colombia), Servicios Online S.A.S. Despegar.com (Despegar Ecuador), and
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 1 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
2/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-2-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
Decolar.com, Inc. (the Despegar Parent Company; collectively, Defendants), to halt their
unfair competition, trademark infringement, false advertising, and other improper or deceptive
practices and for damages, and alleges as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
1.
This is an action arising primarily under Title 15 United States Code, Sections
1114 and 1125.
2. The fundamental purpose of trademark law is to protect consumers from being
confused as to the source or affiliation of the products or services that they seek to buy. In order
to assist consumers in making informed decisions, trademark law encourages companies to
develop brand names to differentiate their products and services within the marketplace. This is
accomplished by legally limiting a brands use to the brands owner.
3. Unfortunately, some individuals and entities attempt to take advantage of
consumers by marketing their products or services in a manner that improperly uses the brands
of others. In effect, they seek a free ride on the reputation and goodwill of anothers brand or the
conduct is such that it is improperly harming the brand of another. The Defendants have
knowingly committed these types of infringements.
THE PARTIES
4. Plaintiff, American Airlines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business at 4333 Amon Carter Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76155.
5. Defendant Despegar.com USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation registered to
conduct business in the State of Florida. Its principal place of business is 14 N.E. 1 st Avenue,
Suite 516, Miami, Florida 33132. Despegar USA is one of the conscious, dominant, and active
forces behind the wrongful acts of complained of herein, such wrongful acts being engaged in for
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 2 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
3/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-3-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
the individual gain and benefit of all Defendants. Because Despegar USA caused and materially
contributed to the unlawful actions alleged herein and the harm caused to American Airlines, it is
therefore responsible and liable to American Airlines for such actions.
6.
Defendant Travel Reservations SRL is based in Uruguay with offices at Ruta 8
Km 17,500, Edificio Synergia, Oficina 101, Zonamerica, Montevideo 1600 UY. Despegar
Uruguay is one of the conscious, dominant, and active forces behind the wrongful acts of
complained of herein, such wrongful acts being engaged in for the individual gain and benefit of
all Defendants. Because Despegar Uruguay caused and materially contributed to the unlawful
actions alleged herein and the harm caused to American Airlines, it is therefore responsible and
liable to American Airlines for such actions.
7. Defendant Despegar.com.ar S.A. is based in Argentina with offices at Boulevard
Corrientes 587, Floor 3, Buenos Aires, Federal Capital C1043ADS. Despegar Argentina is one of
the conscious, dominant, and active forces behind the wrongful acts of complained of herein,
such wrongful acts being engaged in for the individual gain and benefit of all Defendants.
Because Despegar Argentina caused and materially contributed to the unlawful actions alleged
herein and the harm caused to American Airlines, it is therefore responsible and liable to
American Airlines for such actions.
8. Defendant Decolar.com, Ltda. is based in Brazil with offices at Rua Araujo, 216,
7, Andar, Republica, Sao Paulo, SP 0120-020. Despegar Brazil is one of the conscious,
dominant, and active forces behind the wrongful acts of complained of herein, such wrongful
acts being engaged in for the individual gain and benefit of all Defendants. Because Despegar
Brazil caused and materially contributed to the unlawful actions alleged herein and the harm
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 3 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
4/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-4-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
caused to American Airlines, it is therefore responsible and liable to American Airlines for such
actions.
9. Defendant Despegar.com Chile S.A. is based in Chile with offices at Luis Thayer
Ojeda 86, Piso 3, Providencia, Santiago. Despegar Chile is one of the conscious, dominant, and
active forces behind the wrongful acts of complained of herein, such wrongful acts being
engaged in for the individual gain and benefit of all Defendants. Because Despegar Chile caused
and materially contributed to the unlawful actions alleged herein and the harm caused to
American Airlines, it is therefore responsible and liable to American Airlines for such actions.
10.
Defendant Despegar.com Mexico, S.A. de C.V. is based in Mexico with offices at
Avenida Ejercito Nacional, No. 373, piso 3, Granada, Distrito Federal. Despegar Mexico is one
of the conscious, dominant, and active forces behind the wrongful acts of complained of herein,
such wrongful acts being engaged in for the individual gain and benefit of all Defendants.
Because Despegar Mexico caused and materially contributed to the unlawful actions alleged
herein and the harm caused to American Airlines, it is therefore responsible and liable to
American Airlines for such actions.
11. Defendant Despegar.com Per SAC is based in Peru with offices at RUC
20544547756, Calle Martir Jose Olaya #129, Entre 1 y 2 Pardo Esq. BCO NACION,
Lima/Miraflores. Despegar Peru is one of the conscious, dominant, and active forces behind the
wrongful acts of complained of herein, such wrongful acts being engaged in for the individual
gain and benefit of all Defendants. Because Despegar Peru caused and materially contributed to
the unlawful actions alleged herein and the harm caused to American Airlines, it is therefore
responsible and liable to American Airlines for such actions.
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 4 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
5/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-5-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
12. Defendant Servicios Online 3351 de Venezuela, C.A. is based in Venezuela with
offices at Avenida Francisco de Miranda, Parque Cristal, Torre Oeste, Piso 6, Los Palos Grandes,
Caracas. Despegar Venezuela is one of the conscious, dominant, and active forces behind the
wrongful acts of complained of herein, such wrongful acts being engaged in for the individual
gain and benefit of all Defendants. Because Despegar Venezuela caused and materially
contributed to the unlawful actions alleged herein and the harm caused to American Airlines, it is
therefore responsible and liable to American Airlines for such actions.
13. Defendant Despegar Colombia SAS is based in Colombia with offices at Carrera
106 15 A 25 Mx 15, Bogata, D.C., Colombia. Despegar Colombia is one of the conscious,
dominant, and active forces behind the wrongful acts complained of herein, such wrongful acts
being engaged in for the individual gain and benefit of all Defendants. Because Despegar
Colombia caused and materially contributed to the unlawful actions alleged herein and the harm
caused to American Airlines, it is therefore responsible and liable to American Airlines for such
actions.
14.
Defendant Servicios Online S.A.S. Despegar.com is based in Ecuador with offices
at Av Repblica de El Salvador N34-165, Interseccion Suiza, Edificio Dygoil, Quito 170135,
Pinchincha, Ecuador. Despegar Ecuador is one of the conscious, dominant, and active forces
behind the wrongful acts complained of herein, such wrongful acts being engaged in for the
individual gain and benefit of all Defendants. Because Despegar Ecuador caused and materially
contributed to the unlawful actions alleged herein and the harm caused to American Airlines, it is
therefore responsible and liable to American Airlines for such actions.
15.
Defendant Decolar.com, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and is the parent
corporation of all other Defendants. The Despegar Parent Company is one of the conscious,
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 5 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
6/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-6-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
dominant, and active forces behind the wrongful acts complained of herein, such wrongful acts
being engaged in for the individual gain and benefit of all Defendants. Because the Despegar
Parent Company caused and materially contributed to the unlawful actions alleged herein and the
harm caused to American Airlines, it is therefore responsible and liable to American Airlines for
such actions.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs federal claims pursuant
to Title 15, United States Code, Section 1121 and Title 28, United States Code, Sections 1338(a)
and (b).
17.
This Court has jurisdiction over Defendants in that at least one or more of the
Defendants are located in this judicial district, transact business in this judicial district, and each
have committed tortious acts from within this district.
18. Each Defendant, either individually or through one or more of its agents,
committed tortious acts within the State of Florida as described herein.
19.
Through the use of Defendants websites and through their own conduct,
Defendants have committed wrongful acts in Florida, including:
a.
At least several Defendants share at least one common officerMario Fiori.
Decisions made by Mr. Fiori relating to the events harming American as
described herein were made both in his capacity as president of DespegarUSA, and as an officer of Despegar Argentina and the Despegar Parent
Company.
b.
All Defendants actively use the websites despegar.com and decolar.com(collectively, Website) for their fraudulent and improper ticketing scheme.
Defendants actively use electronic communications on the Website to offerFlorida consumers, among others, artificially inflated fares. The fares are
inflated due to charges and fees collected by several Defendants which are
buried in the amount displayed as Americans air fare for the destination. Thisscheme harms Americans business in Florida by willfully and maliciously
diverting customers from American.
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 6 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
7/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-7-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
c. All Defendants actively use electronic communications on the Website totarget, solicit, and offer Florida consumers, among others, artificially inflated
fares. The fares are inflated due to charges and fees collected by several
Defendants which are buried in the amount displayed as Americans air fare
for the destination. This scheme harms Florida consumers by causing suchconsumers to (i) lose the opportunity to pay the correct and lower fare on
American compared with the fares of competing carriers, or (ii) pay distorted,artificially higher charges and fees for American Airlines tickets than charged
by several Defendants for comparable tickets of other airlines.
d.
All Defendants use the Website for their fraudulent and improper ticketing
scheme and several Defendants have actually obtained sales from Florida
consumers from the Website. These sales are neither isolated nor infrequent
and are believed to be in the millions of dollars annually.
e.
All Defendants operate the Website, derive revenue from the Website, orotherwise benefit from the Website, which is hosted by servers based inMiami, Florida. Defendants have arranged for a subsidiary of Despegar
Uruguay to provide server maintenance, technical support, and training in
Miami, Florida.
f.
Despegar USA, Despegar Uruguay, Despegar Argentina, Despegar Brazil,
Despegar Chile, Despegar Mexico, Despegar Peru, Despegar Venezuela,
Despegar Colombia, and Despegar Ecuador each booked air travel for Floridaconsumers on American Airlines.
g. All Defendants actively engage in broad marketing as one companyDespegar.coma fictional entity that functions to encompass all
Defendants, including Foreign Defendants and that presents itself as based in
Miami, Florida.
h.
Defendants have caused the services offered by the Despegar.com fictional
entity to be marketed in Florida to Florida consumers.
i.
All Defendants operating through the Website enter into contractsas
Despegar.comwith various hotels in Florida. These contracts are entered
into for the benefit of and are ratified by all Defendants. Many of thesecontracts include a forum selection clause specifying Florida (and often
Miami) as the forum for the resolution of any disputes.
j.
Each foreign Defendant makes decisions outside of Florida relating to the
portrayal of American Airlines fares on the Website which cause injury to
Florida consumers who pay higher fares believing American is charging thosefares, when in fact the true fare is actually lower. These decisions harm
Americans brand and reputation.
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 7 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
8/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-8-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
k. All Defendants make decisions outside of Florida relating to the portrayal ofAmerican Airlines fares on the Website that cause additional injury to
American by intentionally making Americans fares to appear to be higher
when in fact the true fare is actually lower. These decisions divert customers
from American.
l. Defendants have conspired against American Airlines and have committed atleast one overt act in Florida in furtherance of that conspiracy, including the
use of the Website to display inflated American fares that are targeted to
Florida consumers, among others.
m.
All Defendants are collectively responsible for the operation of the Website,
derive substantial revenues from Florida consumers who use the Website and
they also direct marketing efforts in Florida. There likely are contracts oragreements between Defendants addressing these issues. As such, each
foreign Defendant is in fact conducting business in Florida.
n.
Some fares booked on the Website for travel by Florida residents or to Florida
are improperly transferred by Defendants to another travel agency in order to
impact the payment of supplemental commissions (discussed below). Uponinformation and belief, Defendants have an improper agreement with such
third-party travel agents to divide commissions.
o. The Despegar Parent Company directs or coordinates the acts of all otherDefendants with respect to air travel reservations and the acts complained of
herein.
20.
Defendants unlawful acts occurred in this State and in this district and in
commerce, were directed to cause and have caused injury to Plaintiff within this district and in
commerce.
21. The Despegar Parent Company conducts or engages in a business venture in
Florida and has agents (including but not limited to Despegar USA) with offices in Florida.
22.
The Despegar Parent Company engages in substantial and not isolated activities
within Florida.
23.
Upon information and belief, the Despegar Parent Company was the mastermind
behind the scheme described herein to misuse Americans distinctive marks, to implement
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 8 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
9/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-9-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
confusing and misleading advertising, to artificially inflate the displayed fare prices for
American Airlines flights, to charge higher booking fees for American Airlines flights than
would be charged for flights on other airlines, to divert customers from American to other
airlines, and to deceive consumers, causing harm to American Airlines and the value of its
distinctive marks and reputation. The Despegar Parent Company carried out this plan by
directing each other Defendant to discriminate against American Airlines by charging higher
booking fees for American Airlines flights, to increase the displayed fare price for American
Airlines flights, to divert customers to other airlines, and to display Americans marks and flight
information even if the other Defendants were not authorized to do so.
24.
The Despegar Parent Company exercises a high degree of control over the other
Defendants. The control exercised is so substantial that the individual Defendants act as one
entitythe non-existent entity referred to as Despegar.comfor the ultimate benefit of the
Despegar Parent Company. Upon information and belief, The Despegar Parent Company has
acknowledged that each other Defendant will act in furtherance of the overall brandthe non-
existent entity referred to as Despegar.comand manifests no separate interests of its own
apart from those of the Despegar Parent Company. Each other Defendant has acceded to the
Despegar Parent Companys control and has accepted the agency conferred on it by the Despegar
Parent Company.
25. At all times relevant hereto, the Despegar Parent Company controlled and
directed the activities of each other Defendant as described herein. All companies thus present an
image to the public that they operate as a single enterprise. In fact, the Despegar Parent Company
sufficiently controls its subsidiaries and participates in their activities to such extent that it has,
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 9 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
10/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-10-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
for example, accepted responsibility for activities of each of its subsidiary companies, including
all other Defendants here, in United States administrative enforcement proceedings.
26. As the beneficial owner of all other Defendants, the Despegar Parent Company
thus derived substantial revenues and profits from the tortious acts committed by Defendants in
Florida.
27. The Despegar Parent Company directs its officers or agents to travel to Florida for
the purposes of taking actions that have harmed American, including establishing and
maintaining the Websites that improperly make use of Americans distinctive marks, negotiating
or contracting with Florida-based companies to carry out the Despegar Parent Companys
scheme to injure American, opening bank accounts and completing banking transactions with
Florida-based banks whereby the Despegar Parent Company funnels ill-gotten gains to and from
the other Defendants, and conspiring to harm American. It also routinely sends a representative
to Miami to review and manage its financial affairs.
28. The foregoing facts demonstrate that Defendants carry on a business in Florida,
committed and continue to commit tortious acts in Florida, and are causing injury to persons
within Florida thereby personally subjecting each one to personal jurisdiction in this Court.
29.
Venue is proper in this district under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1391,
because at least one Defendant, if not all of them, conduct business in the district and the claims
asserted against Defendants arose in this district.
PLAINTIFF AND ITS TRADEMARKS
30. American Airlines enjoys a reputation in the United States and internationally as a
premier airline. American Airlines is one of the worlds largest airlines. Together with its
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 10 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
11/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-11-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
affiliates, American Airlines serves 250 cities in over forty countries, with more than 4,000 daily
flights in over 1,000 aircraft.
31. American Airlines has a rich history. For almost 80 yearslong prior to
Defendants acts described hereinAmerican Airlines developed global name-recognition and
goodwill, and has become a household name. In connection with its business, American Airlines
has used and continues to use the trade name American Airlines and the trademarks and service
marks AA and AMERICAN AIRLINES, and both alone and in connection with other words
and designs such as:
(stylized) (stylized)
(hereinafter the American Airlines Marks).
32.
American Airlines draws its roots from scores of aviation companies founded in
the 1920s. The Aviation Corporation was formed in 1928 to acquire many of these young
aviation companies. In 1930, the Aviation Corporations airline subsidiaries were incorporated
into American Airways, Inc. In 1934, American Airways became American Airlines, Inc.
33. On June 25, 1936, American Airlines was the first airline to fly the Douglas DC-3
in commercial service. On February 16, 1937, American Airlines carried its one-millionth
passenger. American Airlines began trading on the New York Stock Exchange on June 10, 1939.
By the end of the decade, American Airlines was the nations number one domestic air carrier in
terms of revenue passenger miles.
34. To enhance and give public notice of its trademark rights, American Airlines has
obtained numerous federal trademark registrations for many of its American Airlines Marks, the
overwhelming majority of which have been in continuous use for more than five years and have
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 11 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
12/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-12-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
become incontestable pursuant to Section 15 of the U.S. Trademark Act, also known as the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1115(b), including but not limited to:
AMERICAN AIRLINES, U.S. Registration No. 514,294. Registered on August
23, 1949 for air transport of passengers and freight, based on first use in commerce in
1934.
AA, U.S. Registration No. 514,292. Registered on August 23, 1949, for air
transport of passengers and freight, based on first use in commerce in 1935.
AA and Design, U.S. Registration No. 893,040. Registered on June 16, 1970, for
transportation of passengers by air, based on first use in commerce in 1969.
AA.COM, U.S. Registration No. 2,339,639. Registered on April 11, 2000, for
transportation of passengers and cargo by air, based on first use in commerce in 1998.
35. In addition to its registration rights, American Airlines has strong common-law
rights in the American Airlines Marks by virtue of the extensive prior use and promotion of the
marks in commerce and American Airlines status as senior user of the marks.
36.
The American Airlines Marks serve as unique and famous source identifiers for
American Airlines and its various air transportation and other services.
37. American Airlines has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in worldwide
advertising and marketing in order to build the fame, reputation, and goodwill of the American
Airlines Marks. American Airlines advertises through a variety of media, including television,
radio, newspapers, magazines, direct mail, and in telephone directories across the country.
38.
American Airlines also promotes its products and services on the Internet, via its
own websites and through advertising on the websites of third parties.
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 12 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
13/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-13-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
39. Through American Airlines longstanding use of the marks and promotional
activities related to the marks, and due to their widespread and favorable public acceptance and
recognition, the American Airlines Marks have become distinctive designations of the source of
origin of American Airlines goods and services. The American Airlines Marks have become
uniquely associated with American Airlines and its high quality goods and services. These marks
are assets of incalculable value as symbols of American Airlines, its quality goods and services,
and its goodwill.
40. By virtue of their extensive use and promotion over the years, the American
Airlines Marks have developed valuable distinctiveness and secondary meaning in the
marketplace. The American Airlines Marks have achieved a significant and lasting presence in
the marketplace, causing the marks to achieve high recognition and value among consumers.
41.
The American Airlines Marks are famous within the meaning of the dilution
provisions of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(c); moreover, the American Airlines Marks
became famous prior to Defendants unlawful acts complained of herein. As a result of
American Airlines extensive advertising and promotional efforts and its continuous use of the
American Airlines Marks, the marks are famous and distinctive and are widely recognized by the
general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the involved goods
and services.
DEFENDANTS WEBSITE IS THE HUB OF THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME
42.
Defendants operate together as an online travel agency (OTA). Defendants
describe themselves as the largest Online Travel Agency in Latin America with a base in
Miami and with a presence in 21 countries throughout the Latin American region and the U.S.
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 13 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
14/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-14-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
43. Defendants collectively operate their OTAs through their Website, which is
accessible at www.despegar.com (which means to take off in Spanish) and www.decolar.com
(which means to take off in Portuguese).
44.
Defendants fraudulent scheme begins with the Website. The Website is created
and operated by Defendants to provide travelers with options for air travel, hotel
accommodations, rental cars, and other services. Each Defendant uses the Website to target
Florida consumers, among others, derive revenues from Florida consumers, among others, and
also divert customers from American.
45.
While Defendants hold out their Website to the public (and to some travel-service
providers such as hotels) as though they operate a singular OTA, that is not how their businesses
are organized. Each Defendant (except the Despegar Parent Company) operates a separate OTA
that shares the same Website with all other Defendants and which has virtually identical content
as the OTAs operated by each other Defendant. Often Defendants contract with hotels and other
travel service providers under the name of a non-existent entityDespegar.com. When it comes
to air travel, however, each Defendant acts as a separate OTA and each must be authorized as an
agent of the airline in order to ticket air travel for consumers.
46.
At all times relevant hereto, the Website was comprised of various country-
specific webpages, all of which were accessible to users in Florida and across the globe from the
main page available at www.despegar.com. Upon information and belief, the responsibility for
the day-to-day operation and revenue generation of the country specific webpages is delegated to
various Defendants as follow:
a.
The day-to-day operation of the country-specific webpages for the United
States is delegated primarily to Despegar USA.
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 14 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
15/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-15-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
b. The day-to-day operation of the country-specific webpages for Uruguay is
delegated primarily to Despegar Uruguay.
c. The day-to-day operation of the country-specific webpages for Argentina isdelegated primarily to Despegar Argentina.
d.
The day-to-day operation of the country-specific webpages for Brazil is
delegated primarily to Despegar Brazil.
e.
The day-to-day operation of the country-specific webpages for Chile is
delegated primarily to Despegar Chile.
f.
The day-to-day operation of the country-specific webpages for Mexico is
delegated primarily to Despegar Mexico.
g. The day-to-day operation of the country-specific webpages for Peru is
delegated primarily to Despegar Peru.
h. The day-to-day operation of the country-specific webpages for Venezuela isdelegated primarily to Despegar Venezuela.
i. The day-to-day operation of the country-specific webpages for Colombia isdelegated primarily to Despegar Colombia.
j.
The day-to-day operation of the country-specific webpages for Ecuador is
delegated primarily to Despegar Ecuador.
k.
The day-to-day operation of all other country-specific webpages is shared
among Defendants.
47.
Upon information and belief, Defendants act in concert to provide uniform
content on each of the country-specific webpages, with the exception that prices will be shown in
the currency of the specific country on which the webpages focus.
48.
Upon information and belief, the Despegar Parent Company coordinates the
activities, including the activities complained of herein, of each of the other Defendants.
Booking and Ticketing Air Travel
49.
Consumers can use Defendants Website to obtain information regarding routes,
schedules, fares, prices, and availability for air travel and to book travel on airlines that have
authorized Defendants to book flights.
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 15 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
16/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-16-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
50. Information regarding schedules, fares, and availability on American Airlines was
provided to Despegar Argentina, Despegar Uruguay, Despegar Brazil, Despegar Chile, Despegar
Mexico, Despegar Peru, Despegar Venezuela, Despegar Colombia, and Despegar Ecuador
(collectively, the Authorized Despegar OTAs) through a global distribution system (GDS)
such as Sabre or Amadeus, which compiles flight information from multiple airlines and delivers
it to travel agencies (including some OTAs).
51.
For each booking, processed through a GDS, airlines typically pay the GDS a fee.
In turn, authorized OTAs responsible for the booking are generally compensated by the GDS.
Some of the Authorized Despegar OTAs were paid an additional commission for booking
international travel on American Airlines.
52. The Authorized Despegar OTAs were previously authorized to serve as booking
and ticketing agents for American Airlines. Despegar USA was never appointed or authorized as
an American Airlines ticketing agent and was not authorized to view, display, book, or ticket
American Airlines flights.
53.
American Airlines tickets are non-transferrable and are issued only in the name of
the actual traveler.
54.
The American Airlines fares some Defendants were authorized to display, book,
and ticket were available for purchase by the traveler from American Airlines, with the
authorized Defendants acting only as an intermediary to facilitate the transaction. Defendants
were not authorized to purchase and re-sell any American Airlines tickets and, in fact, have not
done so.
55.
When a traveler booked an American Airlines flight through one of the
Authorized Despegar OTAs, a seat on that flight would be reserved for the traveler and a ticket
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 16 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
17/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-17-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
may then be purchased from American. Once a reservation was booked, the Authorized
Despegar OTAs could process the transaction between the traveler and American Airlines and
could then issue a ticket on American Airlines ticket stock.
56.
Despite the fact that Despegar USA was never authorized to display American
Airlines flights, it did and improperly used Americans marks in doing so. Upon information
and belief, Despegar USA also secured bookings on American Airlines flights by improperly
utilizing the booking authority of another Defendant. Despegar USA then used brick-and-mortar
or other online travel agencies in order to process the customers payments and ticket these
flights.
57.
As more fully described below, Defendants improperly discriminate against
American Airlines by misrepresenting the air fare prices allegedly charged by American on the
Website. Additionally, Defendants also charge higher ticketing fees for bookings on American
flights than for bookings on other airlines. These improper fare tactics are not disclosed to either
actual or potential consumers. Defendants also improperly shift bookings to and from non-
affiliated travel agencies in order to book and ticket flights Defendants could not or to cause
American Airlines to pay additional commission amounts to the non-affiliated travel agencies in
order to harm Americans business.
58. Defendants scheme is blatant and notorious. Defendants harm both the business
reputation of American and diminish the value of the American Airlines Marks.
Fare Discrimination
59. With regard to fares, Defendants used the American Airlines Marks to display
fares for American Airlines flights. However, Defendants caused their Website to artificially
inflate the air fares actually charged by American Airlines for travel to or from Florida, and to
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 17 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
18/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-18-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
and from other locations in the United States, by including in the purported American fare
amount a portion of a fee charged by Defendants. This additional fee is not separately disclosed
to the potential or actual consumer on the Website at any stagesearch, display, booking or
purchaseas being part of the fee actually and separately charged by Defendants and not
American Airlines.
60. Potential American consumers thus are being improperly diverted from American
to other airlines mistakenly believing that American is charging a higher airfare for the travel
they seek. Actual consumers are deceived into paying an unnecessary and mischaracterized
amount for airfare for the travel they booked through the Website.
Ticketing Fees
61. While using the American Airlines Marks to display fares for American Airlines
flights, Defendants also caused their Website to inflate and charge higher fees for bookings on
American Airlines flights. Defendants do not charge those same fees for tickets booked through
the Website with other carriers for similar travel.
62.
By varying the fees in this manner, Defendants improperly discriminate against
American while appearing to be neutral in their offering of airfare information. In fact,
Defendants even tout a low fare guarantee on their Website. Potential American consumers
thus are being improperly diverted from American to other airlines.
Shifting Bookings
63.
Various travel agencies have agreements with American whereby supplemental
commissions are paid based on the volume of ticketed fares. In other words, as these agencies
volume of tickets increases, so will the commission to be paid by American.
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 18 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
19/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-19-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
64. Upon information and belief, Defendants have agreements with GDSs whereby
additional volume booking incentives are paid to Defendants based on the volume of bookings
completed through a particular GDS. These agreements are believed to provide greater
incentives to Defendants for booking flights on airlines that exclusively use the same GDS that
provides the incentive to Defendants. Because American Airlines has relationships with multiple
GDSs, by booking flights on American, such bookings would not count toward the GDS volume
incentives. Defendants thus have attempted to divert some consumers to airlines other than
American in order to maximize the incentive payments they receive from a GDS.
65.
Again using the American Airlines Marks, Defendants lured consumers to the
Website where flights were booked. However, because some of the Defendants do not have a
booking or ticketing authority (or a supplemental commission agreement) with American, they
shifted bookings to travel agencies who have such authority and agreement. It did so in order to
complete unauthorized transactions and increase the commissions paid by American to these
agencies. Upon information and belief, Defendants improperly entered into arrangements with
such agencies to obtain a share of the supplemental commissions paid by American.
THE HARM TO AMERICAN AND ITS MARKS
66.
Defendants advertise on the internet using the American Airlines Marks in order
to draw consumers to their Website.
67. By using American Airlines name and marks on the Website and in the manner
described above, Defendants make it appear that American Airlines endorses the improper
business practices of charging higher fees and/or fares for travel on American than for air travel
on other airlines thus misleading consumers to believe that fares for travel on American are
higher than those actually published by American or by any other carrier.
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 19 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
20/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-20-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
68. American Airlines has not endorsed or sponsored Defendants activities in the
manner in which they are being conducted. Nor did American Airlines authorize Defendants to
use American Airlines name, reputation, or marks in such a manner.
69.
Consumers who encounter Defendants unauthorized use of the American
Airlines Marks in the manner described herein are likely to believe that Defendants, and the
improper fare and fee charges on the Website, are approved by, associated with, or affiliated with
Plaintiff when, in fact, this is not the case.
70. Defendants thus are improperly trading on American Airlines name and its
reputation. The active use of the Website, the electronic and inaccurate transmission of American
Airlines fare and fee information, the use of American Airlines name and trademark along with
the foregoing misrepresentations is conduct that each Defendant has directly, or indirectly,
caused, participated in, consented to, approved or authorized in order to promote their scheme
for financial gain.
71. The effect of Defendants conduct is to harm Plaintiff and its business reputation
because such conduct is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive the public and
the trade to believe that Defendants and their fraudulent services originate with or are related to
American Airlines, or are licensed by, sponsored or approved by, connected with, or associated
or affiliated with Plaintiff, when this is not the case.
72. Defendants conduct thus harms the business reputation of Plaintiff and
diminishes the value of the distinctive quality of the American Airlines Marks, which are
famous. Defendants harm to American Airlines Marks began after such marks became famous.
73.
Additionally, Despegar USA is displaying the American Airlines Marks and flight
information in order to confuse or deceive the public into believing that Despegar USA is a bona
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 20 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
21/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-21-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
fide booking and ticketing agent of American Airlines when, in fact, it is not. Having drawn
these potential consumers to its Website by use of the American Airlines Marks and then again
by displaying the American Airlines Marks on its Website, potential consumers are then shown
artificially inflated prices for American Airlines fares in order to persuade the consumers to
select another airline for their travel. This is a classic bait-and-switch based on Despegar USAs
misappropriation and infringing use of the American Airlines Marks.
74.
As a result of the aforesaid acts by Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered and
continues to suffer substantial damage and irreparable injury. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy
by law, and unless Defendants are restrained and enjoined by the Court, said acts will be
continued and will continue to cause damage and irreparable injury to Plaintiff and to damage
Plaintiffs goodwill and business reputation. Plaintiff cannot ascertain the precise amount of its
damages at this time.
75. Plaintiff has been required to retain undersigned counsel in this matter and agreed
to pay counsel a reasonable fee for their services.
76.
All conditions precedent to the commencement of this action have occurred or
been waived.
COUNT I
VIOLATION OF LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)
(False Advertising Despegar USA)
77. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through
76 above, as if set forth herein.
78. Section 1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act provides in part:
(a) (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or
services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word,
term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 21 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
22/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-22-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact,
or false or misleading representation of fact, which
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the
nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her
or another persons goods, services, or commercial activities, shall
be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she
is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
79. From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar
USA but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the booking
authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar USA displayed
flight information for American Airlines flights that improperly discriminated against American
Airlines by misrepresenting the air fare prices allegedly charged by American on the Website.
Additionally, Despegar USA also charged higher ticketing fees for bookings on American flights
than for bookings on other airlines. These improper fare tactics were not disclosed to either
actual or potential consumers. Despegar USA also improperly shifted bookings to and from non-
affiliated travel agencies in order to book and ticket flights Despegar USA could not or to cause
American Airlines to pay additional commission amounts to the non-affiliated travel agencies in
order to harm Americans business.
80.
From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar
USA but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the booking
authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar USA caused the
Website to artificially inflate the air fares actually charged by American Airlines for travel to or
from Florida, and to or from other locations in the United States, by including in the purported
American fare amount a portion of a fee charged by Despegar USA. This additional fee was not
separately disclosed to the potential or actual consumer on the Website at any stagesearch,
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 22 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
23/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-23-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
display, booking, or purchaseas being part of the fee actually charged by Despegar USA and
not by American. In this manner, Despegar USA misrepresented the air fare prices allegedly
charged by American on the Website for many, if not all, of Americans flights. These
misrepresentations were made to actual or potential consumers who searched for flights on
routes for which American Airlines offered service. Upon information and belief, Despegar USA
displayed these misrepresented air fare prices to thousands of actual or potential consumers.
81.
From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar
USA but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the booking
authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar USA also charged
higher fees for many, if not all, bookings on American Airlines flights. Despegar USA did not
charge those same fees for tickets booked through the Website with other carriers for similar
travel. Upon information and belief, Despegar USA charged higher booking fees for American
Airlines flights to thousands of consumers.
82. By varying the fees in this manner, Despegar USA improperly discriminated
against American while appearing to be neutral in their offering of air fare information. In fact,
Despegar USA even touted a low fare guarantee on the Website.
83.
Despegar USAs scheme was blatant and notorious. Despegar USA harmed both
the business reputation of American and diminished the value of the American Airlines Marks.
84. Potential consumers thus were being improperly diverted from American to other
airlines mistakenly believing that American is charging a higher airfare for the travel they
sought. Actual consumers were deceived into paying an unnecessary and mischaracterized
amount for travel booked through the Website.
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 23 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
24/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-24-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
85. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this lawsuit, Despegar USA
had agreements with GDSs whereby additional volume booking incentives are paid to Despegar
USA based on the volume of bookings completed through a particular GDS. These agreements
are believed to provide greater incentives to Despegar USA for booking flights on airlines that
exclusively use the same GDS that provides the incentive to Despegar USA. Because American
Airlines has relationships with multiple GDSs, by booking flights on American, such bookings
would not count toward the GDS volume incentives. Despegar USA thus has attempted to divert
some consumers to airlines other than American in order to maximize the incentive payments it
would receive from a GDS.
86.
From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar
USA and not to Plaintiff), and by using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar USA did
not have a booking or ticketing authority (or a supplemental commission agreement) with
American and so it shifted all bookings for American Airlines flights to travel agencies who have
such authority and agreement. It did so in order to complete unauthorized transactions and
increase the commissions paid by American to these agencies (whose identities are known to
Despegar USA). The exact number of bookings shifted by Despegar USA is known to Despegar
USA, but not to Plaintiff. Upon information and belief, Despegar USA improperly entered into
arrangements with such agencies to obtain a share of the supplemental commissions paid by
American.
87. Despegar USAs actions, individually or through its agents as described above,
constitute a false or misleading representation of fact in an advertisement/promotion on the
Website concerning American Airlines fares by wrongfully and falsely attributing to American
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 24 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
25/87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
26/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-26-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
95. Plaintiff is the registrant of the American Airlines Marks.
96.
Plaintiffs American Airlines Marks are famous and highly recognized by the
general consuming public, and were famous and highly recognized by the general consuming
public before Defendants actions complained of herein.
97.
Plaintiff did not consent to Despegar USA using, reproducing, counterfeiting,
copying, or colorably imitating its registered American Airlines Marks in any way. Nor did
Plaintiff consent to Despegar USA applying these Marks to the Website, advertisements, labels,
signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or any other materials intended to be used in
commerce.
98.
On dates known only to Despegar USA, and without authorization or consent
from American Airlines, Despegar USA used a reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable
imitation of Plaintiffs registered American Airlines Marks in connection with the sale, offering
for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services.
99. The American Airlines Marks were displayed on Despegar USAs Website in
connection with information about American Airlines flights. Potential consumers were drawn
to Despegar USAs Website because of the use of Americans Marks and the display of
American Airlines flight information. These consumers could then select and book American
Airlines flights on Despegar USAs Website even though Despegar USA was not authorized
and could not process such reservations.
100.
Upon information and belief, when consumers used Despegar USAs Website to
access and book an American Airlines flight, Despegar USA would use the booking authority of
another Defendant in order to reserve the seat. The reservation was then transferred by Despegar
USA to another travel agency (the identities of which are known to Despegar USA but not to
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 26 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
27/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-27-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
American Airlines) to complete the transaction between the consumer and American Airlines
and to issue the ticket. Upon information and belief, Despegar USA profited from these
transactions based on agreements with authorized travel agencies. Despegar USA also charged
the consumers a service or booking fee for these transactions.
101.
Despegar USAs use of Plaintiffs registered American Airlines Marks is likely to
cause or has caused confusion or mistake or was used to deceive potential consumers into
believing that Despegar USA was an authorized agent of American Airlines.
102. Despegar USAs use of Plaintiffs registered American Airlines Marks is likely to
cause or has caused confusion or mistake or was used to deceive potential consumers into
believing that the fare prices shown on Despegar USAs Website were the fare prices charged by
American Airlines, when in fact they were not.
103.
Despegar USA knew that it did not receive Plaintiffs consent to use the
registered American Airlines Marks and that it was not authorized to book or ticket American
Airlines flights.
104.
Despegar USA knew that the prices displayed on the Website for American
Airlines fares were inaccurate.
105.
Upon information and belief, Defendants willfully and maliciously modified or
allowed the modification of the Website in the manner describe above to harm American
Airlines.
106.
Despegar USA thus used Plaintiffs registered American Airlines Marks with
knowledge that such use was intended to cause confusion, mistake, or deception.
107.
Despegar USA derived substantial revenues and profits through the unauthorized
use of the American Airlines Marks.
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 27 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
28/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-28-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
108. American Airlines has suffered harm, including but not limited to loss of profits
and damages, as a direct result of the Despegar USAs infringing use of Plaintiffs registered
American Airlines Marks.
109.
By virtue of their aforementioned acts, Despegar USA has violated Title 15,
United States Code, Section 1114(1).
COUNT III
VIOLATION OF LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)
(False Advertising Despegar Uruguay)
110. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through
76 above, as if set forth herein.
111.
Section 1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act provides in part:
(a) (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or
services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word,
term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any
false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact,
or false or misleading representation of fact, which
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the
nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her
or another persons goods, services, or commercial activities, shall
be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she
is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
112. From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar
Uruguay but not to Plaintiff), and by using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Uruguay
displayed flight information for American Airlines flights that improperly discriminated against
American Airlines by misrepresenting the air fare prices allegedly charged by American on the
Website. Additionally, Despegar Uruguay also charged higher ticketing fees for bookings on
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 28 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
29/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-29-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
American flights than for bookings on other airlines. These improper fare tactics were not
disclosed to either actual or potential consumers. Despegar Uruguay also improperly shifted
bookings to and from non-affiliated travel agencies in order to book and ticket flights Despegar
Uruguay could not or to cause American Airlines to pay additional commission amounts to the
non-affiliated travel agencies in order to harm Americans business.
113. From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar
Uruguay but not to Plaintiff), and by using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Uruguay
caused the Website to artificially inflate the air fares actually charged by American Airlines for
travel to or from Florida, and to or from other locations in the United States, by including in the
purported American fare amount a portion of a fee charged by Despegar Uruguay. This
additional fee was not separately disclosed to the potential or actual consumer on the Website at
any stagesearch, display, booking, or purchaseas being part of the fee actually charged by
Despegar USA and not by American. In this manner, Despegar Uruguay misrepresented the air
fare prices allegedly charged by American on the Website for many, if not all, of Americans
flights. These misrepresentations were made to actual or potential consumers who searched for
flights on routes for which American Airlines offered service. Upon information and belief,
Despegar Uruguay displayed these misrepresented air fare prices to thousands of actual or
potential consumers.
114.
From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar
Uruguay but not to Plaintiff), and by using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Uruguay
also charged higher fees for many, if not all, bookings on American Airlines flights. Despegar
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 29 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
30/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-30-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
Uruguay did not charge those same fees for tickets booked through the Website with other
carriers for similar travel. Upon information and belief, Despegar Uruguay charged higher
booking fees for American Airlines flights to thousands of consumers.
115.
By varying the fees in this manner, Despegar Uruguay improperly discriminated
against American while appearing to be neutral in their offering of air fare information. In fact,
Despegar Uruguay even touted a low fare guarantee on the Website.
116.
Despegar Uruguays scheme was blatant and notorious. Despegar Uruguay
harmed both the business reputation of American and diminished the value of the American
Airlines Marks.
117.
Potential consumers thus were being improperly diverted from American to other
airlines mistakenly believing that American is charging a higher airfare for the travel they
sought. Actual consumers were deceived into paying an unnecessary and mischaracterized
amount for travel booked through the Website.
118. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this lawsuit, Despegar
Uruguay had agreements with GDSs whereby additional volume booking incentives are paid to
Despegar Uruguay based on the volume of bookings completed through a particular GDS. These
agreements are believed to provide greater incentives to Despegar Uruguay for booking flights
on airlines that exclusively use the same GDS that provides the incentive to Despegar Uruguay.
Because American Airlines has relationships with multiple GDSs, by booking flights on
American, such bookings would not count toward the GDS volume incentives. Despegar
Uruguay thus has attempted to divert some consumers to airlines other than American in order to
maximize the incentive payments it would receive from a GDS.
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 30 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
31/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-31-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
119. From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar
Uruguay but not to Plaintiff), and by using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Uruguay
did not have a supplemental commission agreement with American (or because it sought a more
lucrative commission agreement) so it shifted many bookings for American Airlines flights to
travel agencies who have such authority and agreement. It did so in order to complete
unauthorized transactions and increase the commissions paid by American to these agencies
(whose identities are known to Despegar Uruguay). The exact number of bookings shifted by
Despegar Uruguay is known to Despegar Uruguay, but not to Plaintiff. Upon information and
belief, Despegar Uruguay improperly entered into arrangements with such agencies to obtain a
share of the supplemental commissions paid by American.
120.
Despegar Uruguays actions, individually or through its agents as described
above, constitute a false or misleading representation of fact in an advertisement/promotion on
the Website concerning American Airlines fares by wrongfully and falsely attributing to
American Airlines certain fare prices and fees as being charged by American when in fact that is
not the case.
121.
Alternatively, even if the information on the Website were literally true or
ambiguous, it has the tendency to mislead or deceive consumers. The information regarding fare
prices and fees on the Website is deceptive in the manner displayed to consumers and misleading
in context.
122. Despegar Uruguays representations regarding fare prices and fee information
relating to American as displayed on the Website has deceived and has a tendency to deceive
consumers by materially influencing each consumers air fare purchasing decision.
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 31 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
32/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-32-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
123. Despegar Uruguays representations specifically solicit consumers in interstate
commerce.
124. Upon information and belief, Despegar Uruguay willfully and maliciously
modified the Website in the manner described above to misrepresent fare prices and fees as
retaliation for Americans decision not to offer Defendants a lucrative supplemental commission
agreement for ticketed fares.
125.
Despegar Uruguays actions have harmed and continue to harm American
Airlines and also its actual or potential consumers. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
126.
By virtue of their aforementioned acts, Despegar Uruguay has violated Section
43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).
COUNT IV
VIOLATION OF LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)
(False Advertising Despegar Argentina)
127. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through
76 above, as if set forth herein.
128.
Section 1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act provides in part:
(a) (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or
services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word,
term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any
false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact,
or false or misleading representation of fact, which
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the
nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her
or another persons goods, services, or commercial activities, shall
be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she
is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 32 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
33/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-33-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
129. From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar
Argentina but not to Plaintiff), and by using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Argentina
displayed flight information for American Airlines flights that improperly discriminated against
American Airlines by misrepresenting the air fare prices allegedly charged by American on the
Website. Additionally, Despegar Argentina also charged higher ticketing fees for bookings on
American flights than for bookings on other airlines. These improper fare tactics were not
disclosed to either actual or potential consumers. Despegar Argentina also improperly shifted
bookings to and from non-affiliated travel agencies in order to book and ticket flights Despegar
Argentina could not or to cause American Airlines to pay additional commission amounts to the
brick-and-mortar travel agencies in order to harm Americans business.
130.
From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar
Argentina but not to Plaintiff), and by using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Argentina
caused the Website to artificially inflate the air fares actually charged by American Airlines for
travel to or from Florida, and to or from other locations, by including in the purported American
fare amount a portion of a fee charged by Despegar Argentina. This additional fee was not
separately disclosed to the potential or actual consumer on the Website at any stagesearch,
display, booking, or purchaseas being part of the fee actually charged by Despegar Argentina
and not by American. In this manner, Despegar Argentina misrepresented the air fare prices
allegedly charged by American on the Website for many, if not all, of Americans flights. These
misrepresentations were made to actual or potential consumers who searched for flights on
routes for which American Airlines offered service. Upon information and belief, Despegar
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 33 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
34/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-34-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
Argentina displayed these misrepresented air fare prices to thousands of actual or potential
consumers.
131. From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar
Argentina but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Argentina
also charged higher fees for many, if not all, bookings on American Airlines flights. Despegar
Argentina did not charge those same fees for tickets booked through the Website with other
carriers for similar travel. Upon information and belief, Despegar Argentina charged higher
booking fees for American Airlines flights to thousands of consumers.
132.
By varying the fees in this manner, Despegar Argentina improperly discriminated
against American while appearing to be neutral in their offering of air fare information. In fact,
Despegar Argentina even touted a low fare guarantee on the Website.
133. Despegar Argentinas scheme was blatant and notorious. Despegar Argentina
harmed both the business reputation of American and diminished the value of the American
Airlines Marks.
134. Potential consumers thus were being improperly diverted from American to other
airlines mistakenly believing that American is charging a higher airfare for the travel they
sought. Actual consumers were deceived into paying an unnecessary and mischaracterized
amount for travel booked through the Website.
135.
Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this lawsuit, Despegar
Argentina had agreements with GDSs whereby additional volume booking incentives are paid to
Despegar Argentina based on the volume of bookings completed through a particular GDS.
These agreements are believed to provide greater incentives to Despegar Argentina for booking
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 34 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
35/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-35-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
flights on airlines that exclusively use the same GDS that provides the incentive to Despegar
Argentina. Because American Airlines has relationships with multiple GDSs, by booking flights
on American, such bookings would not count toward the GDS volume incentives. Despegar
Argentina thus has attempted to divert some consumers to airlines other than American in order
to maximize the incentive payments it would receive from a GDS.
136. From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar
Argentina but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, because Despegar
Argentina did not have a supplemental commission agreement with American or because it
sought a more lucrative commission agreement, it was shifting many bookings for American
Airlines flights to travel agencies who have such authority and agreement. It did so in order to
complete unauthorized transactions and increase the commissions paid by American to these
agencies (whose identities are known to Despegar Argentina). The exact number of bookings
shifted by Despegar Argentina is known to Despegar Argentina, but not to Plaintiff. Upon
information and belief, Despegar Argentina improperly entered into arrangements with such
agencies to obtain a share of the supplemental commissions paid by American.
137.
Despegar Argentinas actions, individually or through its agents as described
above, constitute a false or misleading representation of fact in an advertisement/promotion on
the Website concerning American Airlines fares by wrongfully and falsely attributing to
American Airlines certain fare prices and fees as being charged by American when in fact that is
not the case.
138.
Alternatively, even if the information on the Website were literally true or
ambiguous, it has the tendency to mislead or deceive consumers. The information regarding fare
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 35 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
36/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-36-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
prices and fees on the Website is deceptive in the manner displayed to consumers and misleading
in context.
139. Despegar Argentinas representations regarding fare prices and fee information
relating to American as displayed on the Website has deceived and has a tendency to deceive
consumers by materially influencing each consumers air fare purchasing decision.
140. Despegar Argentinas representations specifically solicit consumers in interstate
commerce.
141. Upon information and belief, Despegar Argentina willfully and maliciously
modified the Website in the manner described above to misrepresent fare prices and fees as
retaliation for Americans decision not to offer Defendants a lucrative supplemental commission
agreement for ticketed fares.
142.
Despegar Argentinas actions have harmed and continue to harm American
Airlines and also its actual or potential consumers. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
143. By virtue of their aforementioned acts, Despegar Argentina has violated Section
43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).
COUNT V
VIOLATION OF LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)
(False Advertising Despegar Brazil)
144. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through
76 above, as if set forth herein.
145.
Section 1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act provides in part:
(a) (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or
services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word,
term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any
false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact,
or false or misleading representation of fact, which
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 36 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
37/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-37-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the
nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her
or another persons goods, services, or commercial activities, shall
be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she
is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
146.
From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar
Brazil but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Brazil
displayed flight information for American Airlines flights that improperly discriminated against
American Airlines by misrepresenting the air fare prices allegedly charged by American on the
Website. Additionally, Despegar Brazil also charged higher ticketing fees for bookings on
American flights than for bookings on other airlines. These improper fare tactics were not
disclosed to either actual or potential consumers. Despegar Brazil also improperly shifted
bookings to and from non-affiliated travel agencies in order to book and ticket flights Despegar
Brazil could not or to cause American Airlines to pay additional commission amounts to the non-
affiliated travel agencies in order to harm Americans business.
147. From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar
Brazil but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Brazil
caused the Website to artificially inflate the air fares actually charged by American Airlines for
travel to or from Florida, and to or from other locations in the United States, by including in the
purported American fare amount a portion of a fee charged by Despegar Brazil. This additional
fee was not separately disclosed to the potential or actual consumer on the Website at any
stagesearch, display, booking, or purchaseas being part of the fee actually charged by
Despegar Brazil and not by American. In this manner, Despegar Brazil misrepresented the air
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 37 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
38/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-38-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
fare prices allegedly charged by American on the Website for many, if not all, of Americans
flights. These misrepresentations were made to actual or potential consumers who searched for
flights on routes for which American Airlines offered service. Upon information and belief,
Despegar Brazil displayed these misrepresented air fare prices to thousands of actual or potential
consumers.
148. From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar
Brazil but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Brazil also
charged higher fees for many, if not all, bookings on American Airlines flights. Despegar Brazil
did not charge those same fees for tickets booked through the Website with other carriers for
similar travel. Upon information and belief, Despegar Brazil charged higher booking fees for
American Airlines flights to thousands of consumers.
149. By varying the fees in this manner, Despegar Brazil improperly discriminated
against American while appearing to be neutral in their offering of air fare information. In fact,
Despegar Brazil even touted a low fare guarantee on the Website.
150. Despegar Brazils scheme was blatant and notorious. Despegar Brazil harmed
both the business reputation of American and diminished the value of the American Airlines
Marks.
151. Potential consumers thus were being improperly diverted from American to other
airlines mistakenly believing that American is charging a higher airfare for the travel they
sought. Actual consumers were deceived into paying an unnecessary and mischaracterized
amount for travel booked through the Website.
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 38 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
39/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-39-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
152. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this lawsuit, Despegar Brazil
had agreements with GDSs whereby additional volume booking incentives are paid to Despegar
Brazil based on the volume of bookings completed through a particular GDS. These agreements
are believed to provide greater incentives to Despegar Brazil for booking flights on airlines that
exclusively use the same GDS that provides the incentive to Despegar Brazil. Because American
Airlines has relationships with multiple GDSs, by booking flights on American, such bookings
would not count toward the GDS volume incentives. Despegar Brazil thus has attempted to
divert some consumers to airlines other than American in order to maximize the incentive
payments it would receive from a GDS.
153.
From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar
Brazil but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, because Despegar
Brazil did not have a supplemental commission agreement with American or because it sought a
more lucrative commission agreement, it was shifting many bookings for American Airlines
flights to travel agencies who have such authority and agreement. It did so in order to complete
unauthorized transactions and increase the commissions paid by American to these agencies
(whose identities are known to Despegar Brazil). The exact number of bookings shifted by
Despegar Brazil is known to Despegar Brazil, but not to Plaintiff. Upon information and belief,
Despegar Brazil improperly entered into arrangements with such agencies to obtain a share of the
supplemental commissions paid by American.
154. Despegar Brazils actions, individually or through its agents as described above,
constitute a false or misleading representation of fact in an advertisement/promotion on the
Website concerning American Airlines fares by wrongfully and falsely attributing to American
Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 39 of 87
-
8/10/2019 American Airlines v. Despagar - trademark complaint.pdf
40/87
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
-40-
MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171
750362
Airlines certain fare prices and fees as being charged by American when in fact that is not the
cas