mgm signature complaint

391697.2-1-

Lewis and Roca LLP3993 Howard Hughes Parkway

Suite 600Las Vegas, Nevada 89169

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MICHAEL J. McCUE (Nevada Bar #6055)[email protected] W. FOUNTAIN (Nevada Bar #10351)[email protected] AND ROCA LLP3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 600Las Vegas, Nevada 89169Telephone: (702) 949-8200Fax: (702) 949-8363

Attorneys for PlaintiffsMGM GRAND HOTEL, LLC, andTHE SIGNATURE CONDOMINIUMS, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

MGM GRAND HOTEL, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; and THE SIGNATURE CONDOMINIUMS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

JARRETT I. CURD, an individual,

Defendant.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs MGM GRAND HOTEL, LLC, and THE SIGNATURE CONDOMINIUMS,

LLC, for their complaint against JARRETT I. CURD (“Curd”) allege the following.

NATURE OF THE CASE

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

known as "The Signature at MGM Grand," located on West Harmon Avenue in Las Vegas,

Nevada. Defendant Curd owns units at The Signature at MGM Grand. This action arises from,

among other things, Curd’s conduct of passing himself off as the President of The Signature at

MGM Grand to cause centralized reservation service providers to remove The Signature at MGM

Grand from their reservation systems, Curd's false advertising in connection with rental of units at

The Signature at MGM Grand, Curd’s adoption and use of a business name and trademark that is

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

391697.2-2-



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

confusingly similar to THE SIGNATURE AT MGM GRAND mark, and Curd’s copying and use

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

assert claims for trademark infringement, unfair competition, false advertising, cybersquatting,

trade dress infringement, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.

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

JURISDICTION

1. This action arises under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq., and under the

statutes and common law of the State of Nevada.

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1121 and 1125

and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). This Court has jurisdiction over the state and common law claims under

28 U.S.C. § 1338(b), because those claims are joined with substantial and related claims under 15

U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the state and common

law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because those claims are related to claims under this Court’s

original jurisdiction and form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United

States Constitution.

3. This Court has general jurisdiction over Curd because, upon information and

belief, he resides in this judicial district and conducts systematic and continuous business in this

judicial district. This Court also has specific personal jurisdiction over Curd because he has

purposefully directed his conduct at Plaintiffs in Nevada, Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of Curd’s

contacts with Nevada, and the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Curd comports with

Constitutional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

4. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Venue lies in the

unofficial southern division of this Court.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff MGM Grand Hotel, LLC (“MGM Grand”) is a Nevada limited liability

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


391697.2-3-



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

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

7. Defendant Jarrett I. Curd is an individual doing business under the name “Owners’

Suites at Signature MGM Grand.”

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. MGM Grand owns and operates the world famous MGM Grand hotel and casino

on the Las Vegas Strip. MGM Grand has been using the MGM GRAND mark since 1973.

MGM MIRAGE, the parent of MGM Grand, owns trademark rights in the MGM GRAND mark,

including a U.S. federal trademark registration for MGM GRAND for hotel services (U.S. Reg.

No. 1,060,488).

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

MGM Grand” (“Signature Property”). MGM Grand owns a U.S. federal trademark registration

for THE SIGNATURE AT MGM GRAND and design mark (U.S. Reg. No. 3372217) (“The

Signature Trademark”).

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

including, among other things, lobbies, pools, restaurants, and a fitness facility. The individual

hotel condominium units at the Signature Property are privately owned. Owners of the individual

units can, under certain circumstances, make their units available for booking as hotel rooms in

the MGM MIRAGE Central Reservation Service through which MGM MIRAGE properties make

their hotel room inventory available for booking. Such rooms are available for booking through

Global Distribution Service (“GDS”) providers, such as Sabre, Amadeus, Apollo, Worldspan and

Pegasus. If unit owners make their units available for booking through GDS, The Signature

manages aspects of the guests’ stay at the Signature Property, including handling the check in and

check out process and providing maintenance and maid service. The Signature and the unit

owners share in the revenue generated by such bookings.

11. Instead of making their units available for booking through the MGM MIRAGE

Central Reservation Service, the unit owners at the Signature Property can make their

condominiums available for booking through independent means, provided that they pay


391697.2-4-



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

applicable transient service fees.

12. Upon information and belief, Curd independently offers units at the Signature

Property for booking under the mark "Owners Suites at Signature MGM Grand" ("Infringing

Mark"). The Infringing Mark is confusingly similar to The Signature Trademark and is likely to

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

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

services.

13. Curd has registered and is using the domain name

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

Signature Trademark and is likely to confuse consumers as to the source or origin of Curd's

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

sponsorship or approval of Curd's services.

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

that emulates the look and feel of the official web site for The Signature located at

<signaturemgmgrand.com>, including, but not limited to, the color, interface, layout, photography

and information. Curd’s web site also appears to contain content, including photographs and

backgrounds, from the official web site. Curd's web site is likely to confuse consumers as to the

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

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

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

persistent pattern of intentional and malicious conduct to injure The Signature and deceive

consumers. On or about November 26, 2007, without Plaintiffs’ knowledge or consent, Curd sent

a letter to GDS partners on letterhead bearing The Signature Trademark. Upon information and

belief, Curd fabricated the letterhead by cutting and pasting The Signature Mark from another

source. In the letter, Curd stated, in pertinent part:Please be advised that effective immediately, The Signature at MGM Grand, Las Vegas, Nevada will no longer be represented by MGM/Mirage (MV) Central Reservation Services. This hotel will now be represented by InnLink Central Reservation Services as Owners Suites at Signature MGM.


391697.2-5-



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In the letter, Curd provided MGM MIRAGE’s GDS property codes numbers and chain code to

enable the GDS providers to change these codes. Curd signed the letter as “President” of The

Signature.

16. Upon information and belief, on December 5, 2007, InnLink, who Curd designated

as the new representative for the Signature Property, informed GDS partners to replace the

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

17. As the direct result of Curd’s and InnLink’s conduct, travel agents and others

could not use the GDS systems to book rooms at the Signature Property.

18. After The Signature learned from travel agents that they could not use the GDS

systems to book rooms at the Signature Property, The Signature investigated and determined that

Curd and InnLink had directed the GDS providers to change the codes for the Signature Property.

19. On December 21, 2007, after learning of Curd’s conduct, counsel for Plaintiffs

sent a cease and desist letter to Curd demanding, among other things, that Curd: (a) cease any

attempt to change the codes for the Signature Property in the GDS system; (b) disable the web site

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

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

business as “Owners Suites at Signature MGM Grand” or any other trade name or trademark that

contains the MGM Grand or The Signature Trademark; (e) cease using any of Plaintiffs’

copyrighted works relating to the Signature Property; and (f) provide counsel with all originals

and copies of any materials reflecting Curd’s use of any of Plaintiffs’ intellectual property,

including, but not limited to, business cards, stationery, brochures, and photographs.

20. After not receiving a response from Curd, on December 27, 2007, counsel for

Plaintiffs sent another copy of the cease and desist letter to Curd and demanded a response by

December 28, 2007.

21. On December 29, 2007, Curd finally responded. Curd denied the allegations in the

cease and desist letter and claimed that InnLink’s changing of the reservation codes was a

“misunderstanding.” Curd indicated that he would confer with counsel regarding use of The

Signature Trademark. Curd ignored Plaintiffs’ other demands set forth in the cease and desist


391697.2-6-



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

letter.

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

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

conduct. Since that time, however, The Signature has received additional complaints about Curd

from guests of the Signature Property.

23. On or about January 20, 2008, The Signature received a complaint from a guest

who rented a unit at the Signature Property from Curd. Curd represented to the guest that he

would cover all charges for services, including housekeeping services, during the customer's stay.

However, Curd did not, in fact, cover the charges and the guest was charged for housekeeping

services. The guest complained about how Curd's practices do not "look good" for The Signature.

24. In May 2008, The Signature received a complaint from a customer who had

booked a unit at the Signature Property from a "Jonathan Jared." The Signature was not able to

find any record of the reservation. Through investigation, The Signature learned that the unit at

issue was owned by Curd. Curd had allegedly offered the unit for booking under the false name

"Jonathan Jared." Upon information and belief, Curd is also offering to book units of a type that

he does not own. Upon information and belief, Curd is booking units without paying the fees

required by The Signature.

25. On or about May 27, 2008, Plaintiffs learned that Curd has reactivated the

<signaturemgmgrandownerssuites.com> web site and that Curd has recommenced using the

Infringing Mark.

26. On May 29, 2008, a guest arrived at the Signature Property and informed The

Signature that he had booked a unit through Curd’s web site. The Signature had no record of the

reservation and Curd’s unit was already booked.

27. Curd's conduct has injured and is likely to continuing injuring the goodwill and

reputation of The Signature.

COUNT I(Trademark Infringement under

the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114)

28. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth in each of the preceding paragraphs


391697.2-7-



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

as if fully set forth herein.

29. Curd has reproduced, counterfeited, copied, and/or colorably imitated The

Signature Trademark without the authorization or consent of Plaintiffs.

30. Curd has used and/or is using in commerce reproductions, counterfeits, copies, or

colorable imitations of The Signature Trademark in connection with the sale, offering for sale,

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

cause mistake, or to deceive.

31. As the result of Curd’s conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to

suffer, irreparable injury and damages.

COUNT II(Unfair Competition

under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))

32. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set

forth herein.

33. Curd’s use in commerce of the Infringing Mark is likely to cause confusion, cause

mistake or deceive as to Curd’s affiliation, connection, or association with Plaintiffs or as to the

sponsorship or approval of Curd’s services or commercial activities by Plaintiffs.



COUNT III(False Advertising

under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c))


forth herein.

36. Curd has made false representations of fact regarding his services in interstate

commerce in commercial advertising and promotion of their services and commercial activities.




391697.2-8-



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COUNT IV(Cybersquatting

under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d))


forth herein.

39. Curd has registered, trafficked in, and/or used a domain name that is confusingly

similar to and/or dilutive of The Signature Trademark, which was distinctive and/or famous at the

time Curd registered the < signaturemgmgrandownerssuites.com > domain name.

40. Upon information and belief, Curd has or has had a bad faith intent to profit

therefrom.



COUNT V(Trade Dress Infringement)


forth herein.

43. Plaintiffs’ trade dress in and to the advertising for the Signature Property is

inherently distinctive or has acquired secondary meaning in the market.

44. Curd’s use of trade dress that is confusingly similar to The Signature trade dress in

connection with Curd’s services or commercial activities without Plaintiffs’ authorization is likely

to cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers who will falsely believe that Curd’s

services or commercial activities are affiliated with, or endorsed by Plaintiffs, when, in fact, there

is no affiliation between Curd and the Plaintiffs.


suffer, irreparable injury and damages.COUNT VI

(Common Law Trademark Infringementand Unfair Competition)


forth herein.

47. Plaintiffs have acquired common law rights in and to The Signature Trademark.


391697.2-9-



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

48. Curd’s use of a mark that is confusingly similar to The Signature Trademark in

connection with Curd’s services or commercial activities without Plaintiffs’ authorization is likely

to cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers who will falsely believe that Curd’s

services or commercial activities are affiliated with, or endorsed by Plaintiffs, when, in fact, there

is no affiliation between Curd and the Plaintiffs.



COUNT VII(Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)


forth herein.

51. Plaintiffs had actual and prospective economic relationships with GDS providers

and guests who wished to book rooms at The Signature Property.

52. Curd committed acts intended or designed to disrupt Plaintiffs’ prospective

economic advantage arising from such relationships.

53. Curd’s actions disrupted Plaintiffs’ prospective economic advantage.

54. Curd had no legal right, privilege or justification for his conduct.



PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

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

from:

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

change any information, designations or codes pertaining to Plaintiffs in

any Global Distribution Service or reservation system or otherwise

interfering with Plaintiffs’ ability to generate bookings through such

services;


391697.2-10-



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(2) Using the Infringing Mark or any mark that contains or is confusingly

similar to The Signature Mark;

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

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

The Signature Mark;

(4) Using Plaintiffs’ trade dress or any trade dress that is confusingly similar

thereto;

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

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

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

advertising, marketing, promotional or other commercial activities of his

business relating to Plaintiffs, including, but not limited to, double booking

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

guests, and using an assumed name;

(7) Engaging in any business activities in which he represents or implies that

he is affiliated, connected or associated with Plaintiffs or that his

commercial activities are approved of or sponsored by Plaintiffs; and

(8) Continuing to engage in any of the tortious conduct described in this

Complaint.

B. Award Plaintiffs their compensatory, punitive, exemplary, statutory, treble, and all

other damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

D. Award Plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees and costs; and

///

///

///

///

///

///


391697.2-11-



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E. Grant Plaintiffs any other relief that the court deems just and equitable.

DATED this 10th day of June, 2008.

Respectfully submitted,

LEWIS AND ROCA, LLP

By: /s/ MICHAEL J. McCUE (Nevada Bar #6055)JONATHAN W. FOUNTAIN (Nevada Bar #10351)3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 600Las Vegas, Nevada 89169

Attorneys for Plaintiffs


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

mgm signature complaint

Documents