1 

37324261.1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

CASE No. 

CORAL CASTLE, INC. 

 Plaintiff 

v. 

EPIC GAMES, INC. 

 Defendant 

______________________________ 

COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff Coral Castle, Inc. (“CCI” or “Plaintiff”), by and through undersigned counsel, 

files this Complaint (“Complaint”), and avers and asserts the following claims against Defendant 

Epic Games, Inc. (“EGI”): 

INTRODUCTION 

1. The case is about Fortnite, one of the most popular and best-selling video games

of all time. EGI released Fortnite in or around September 2017. Since that time, the game has 

had sales exceeding $1,000,000,000.00 (1 Billion Dollars). 

2. One mode of the game is called Fortnite: Battle Royale, where one hundred (100)

players attempt to survive in a virtual world made up of various cities, towns and landmarks 

(each a “Location,” collectively the “Locations”). 

3. The virtual world of Fortnite is continually changing, with Locations being added

(and removed) on a regular basis. 

1:20-cv-23381

Case 1:20-cv-23381-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 1 of 27
2 

37324261.1 

4. In some cases these Locations have names coined by EGI, like “Dusty Divot,” 

“Loot Lake” or “Tilted Towers”. In other cases, Locations have the names of fictional places 

from popular culture, like “Gotham City” and “Westworld.” 

5. On or about August 1, 2020, EGI changed the virtual world of Fortnite: Battle 

Royale to add a Location called “Coral Castle,” and that is where the issue lies. 

THE PARTIES 

6. Plaintiff CCI is a Florida Corporation with its principal place of business located 

at 28655 South Dixie Highway, Miami, Florida 33033. 

7. Defendant EGI is a North Carolina Corporation with its principal place of 

business at 620 Crossroads Boulevard, Cary, North Carolina 27518. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

8. Through this Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendant that arise 

under the Lanham Act of 1946, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq., Florida Common Law, 

and Florida Statutory Law. 

9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal claims pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) (federal question; trademarks), as well as 28 U.S.C. § 1332 

(diversity). 

10. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ pendant state law claims 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because the state law claims arise out of a common nucleus of 

operative facts as the federal law claims. 

11. Venue is also proper in this District and Division under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 

1400(a) because EGI’s activities have caused substantial damage to CCI in this District and 

Division, and because EGI may be found in this District and Division. 

Case 1:20-cv-23381-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 2 of 27
3 

37324261.1 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

THE ‘REAL’ CORAL CASTLE 

12. Coral Castle is a limestone structure created by an eccentric Latvian-American 

named Edward Leedskalnin (1887–1951). It is located in unincorporated territory of MiamiDade County, Florida, between the cities of Homestead and Leisure City. The structure 

comprises numerous megalithic stones, mostly limestone formed from coral, each weighing 

several tons. 

13. Leedskalnin started work on what would become Coral Castle in the early 1920s. 

He moved the structure at least once during construction, but it has been in its present location 

since 1936. Leedskalnin continued to work on the structure until his death in 1951. Leedskalnin 

operated Coral Castle as a tourist attraction from 1923 on, charging ten (10) cents admission per 

person at first. 

14. Leedskalnin’s originally named the structure “Rock Gate.” After his death (in 

1951), Leedskalnin’s family sold the property, and the new owners renamed it “Coral Castle.” It 

continued to operate as a tourist attraction under the new ownership. 

15. Coral Castle is currently a privately-operated tourist attraction, owned and 

operated by Plaintiff CCI. 

16. Coral Castle is noted for legends surrounding its creation. Some claim it was 

built single-handedly by Leedskalnin using reverse magnetism or supernatural abilities to move 

and carve numerous stones, each weighing many tons. Due to its mysterious and mythical 

background, Coral Castle is often referred to as “Florida’s Stonehenge.” 

 

Case 1:20-cv-23381-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 3 of 27
4 

37324261.1 

17. Shown below are various images of Coral Castle: 

 

18. Coral Castle is a world famous and well-known destination and tourist attraction. 

19. Coral Castle is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 

Case 1:20-cv-23381-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 4 of 27
5 

37324261.1 

20. Coral Castle has been featured in various films, including: (1) The Wild Women of 

Wongo (1958), (2) Nude on the Moon (1961), and (3) Jimmy, the Boy Wonder (1966). 

21. Coral Castle was also featured on an episode of Leonard Nimoy’s television 

program In Search of... (1976–1982), entitled “The Castle of Secrets,” and on the History 

Channel series Ancient Aliens (Season 8, Episode 2(2014)). 

22. TripAdvisor ranked Coral Castle as one of the Top 35 museums in the United 

States (out of over 35,000). Coral Castle has hosted thousands of visitors per year, including 

several national and local celebrities. In 2019, Coral Castle was named one of “The 40 Most 

Mysterious Places in the Whole Entire World” along with places like Area 51 and The Bermuda 

Triangle. Coral Castle’s Facebook Page has over 69,000 Followers, and over 42,000 “CheckIns” for the location. Billy Idol’s song 1987 “Sweet Sixteen” is about Leedskalnin’s building of 

the structure, and his video for the song was filmed there. See Ex. C. 

PLAINTIFF’S TRADEMARKS 

23. Plaintiff CCI holds two (2) U.S. Trademark Registrations related to Coral Castle. 

U.S. Reg. No. 5,057,446 for the mark CORAL CASTLE (the “’446 Registration”) was issued on 

October 11, 2016 and covers services such as “On-line retail store services featuring hats, shirts, 

books, DVDs, replicas of museum attractions, collectible spoons, thimbles, lapel pins, tie tacks, 

mints, Christmas ornaments, souvenir patches, shot glasses, bumper stickers, toys, mugs, plates, 

cups, souvenir tins sold empty, magnets” (in Class 35) and “Museum services” (in Class 41). 

U.S. Reg. No. 5,057, 447 for the logo mark CORAL CASTLE MUSEUM EST. 1923 ~ MIAMI, 

FL (And Design) (the “’447 Registration”) was issued on October 11, 2016 and covers services 

such as “Museum services” (in Class 41). See Ex. A. 

Case 1:20-cv-23381-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 5 of 27
6 

37324261.1 

24. Plaintiff also owns common law rights in the marks CORAL CASTLE and 

CORAL CASTLE MUSEUM EST. 1923 ~ MIAMI, FL (And Design) (collectively, the 

“Trademarks”), based on over forty (40) years of continuous and exclusive use. 

25. The ‘447 Registration is for the logo shown below, which includes pictorial 

representations of a castle, a crown, seahorses and a scallop shell. See Ex. A, ‘447 Reg., Mark 

Description (“The mark consists of a castle with a seahorse on either side facing inward on a 

medallion with a crown at the top and leaf designs at either side of the crown, and a scallop shell 

with leaf designs on either side at the bottom of the medallion...”). 

FORTNITE: BATTLE ROYALE 

26. Fortnite has many different gameplay modes. In the mode called Fortnite: Battle 

Royale, one hundred (100) players fight for survival throughout multiple Locations on a virtual 

island. 

27. EGI released the initial version of Fortnite: Battle Royale as a paid game. 

28. However, by September 2017, due in part to the success of a competing game 

called PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds (“PUBG”), EGI re-released Fortnite: Battle Royale as a 

‘free-to-play’ game. 

Case 1:20-cv-23381-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 6 of 27
7 

37324261.1 

29. As a free-to-play video game, EGI allows players to download and play Fortnite: 

Battle Royale for free. The game is supported primarily by purchases made within an electronic 

storefront for virtual use in the game. 

30. For example, players can make in-game purchases of currency, called “V-Bucks.” 

The players, in turn, use V-Bucks to purchase customizations for their in-game avatars, including 

new characters, vehicles, weapons, clothes and “emotes.” 

31. EGI also sells “Battle Passes” that allow the player to unlock unique characters, 

vehicles, weapons, clothes and “emotes.” 

32. EGI presently offers four (4) pricing levels for V-Bucks: (1) 1,000 V-Bucks for 

$9.99; (2) 2,500 (+300 Bonus) V-Bucks for $24.99; (3) 6,000 (+1,500 Bonus) V-Bucks for 

$59.99; and (4) 10,000 (+3,500 Bonus) V-Bucks for $99.99. 

33. “Battle Passes” typically cost 950 V-Bucks (a little under $10.00). 

34. In November 2018, Bloomberg announced that Fortnite had 200 Million player 

accounts across all platforms. Fortnite’s popularity has translated into record sales for EGI. 

Analysts have estimated that since its release, Fortnite has generated between $1 billion to $2 

billion in revenue, mainly through in-game purchases. 

35. In May 2018, Fortnite broke its own record by generating approximately $318 

Million in revenue, the biggest month ever for a video game. In fact, nearly 80 Million people 

played Fortnite in August 2018. 

Case 1:20-cv-23381-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 7 of 27
8 

37324261.1 

CHAPTER 2, SEASON 3 

36. Fortnite: Battle Royale has various ‘Chapters’ and ‘Seasons’ that change over 

time. As of August 1, 2020, the Fortnite: Battle Royale experience was being referenced as 

“Chapter 2, Season 3”. 

37. Chapter 2, Season 1 of Fortnite: Battle Royale began in October 2019. Chapter 2, 

Season 2 began in in February 2020. The current version (Chapter 2, Season 3) launched on 

June 17, 2020. 

38. The virtual world of Chapter 2, Season 3 is primarily water-based, with new 

locations revealed as time passes and the water recedes (“As time goes on and water recedes, 

even more locations will be uncovered.”). See https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/enUS/chapter-2-season-3. 

 

Case 1:20-cv-23381-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 8 of 27
9 

37324261.1 

39. The Fortnite: Battle Royale map typically has between ten (10) and twenty (20) 

Locations at any one time. Below is an image from a current (August 1, 2020) version of the 

Fortnite: Battle Royale map (Chapter 2, Season 3). 

40. In addition to “Coral Castle,” Locations on this map include “Sweaty Sands,” 

“Dirty Docks,” “Catty Corner” and “Misty Meadows.” No other locations on the current map 

have the same as famous landmarks (like Coral Castle). 

THE ‘VIRTUAL’ CORAL CASTLE 

41. The ‘virtual’ “Coral Castle” (hereinafter “VCC”) is a Location in the upper lefthand corner of the above-referenced map. 

42. The map was altered by EGI at some point on August 1, 2020 to reveal VCC for 

the first time. 

 

Case 1:20-cv-23381-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 9 of 27
10 

37324261.1 

43. A Fortnite news site released the Tweet below on August 1, 2020 at 1:10 am, 

which shows VCC: 

44. In the game, VCC appears as a beach area, including islands, sandbars and water 

features. VCC also includes various castles, castle walls, stone objects and statutes. Below is a 

promotional image of VCC published by EGI: 

 

Case 1:20-cv-23381-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 10 of 27
11 

37324261.1 

45. Additional gameplay images of VCC from Chapter 2, Season 3 are shown below: 

Case 1:20-cv-23381-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 11 of 27
12 

37324261.1 

46. As shown above, VCC shares common themes with the real Coral Castle. Both 

include nautical/beach motifs, castle structures, partial castle walls, and stone objects. Both also 

evoke the feeling of a centuries old mysterious place. 

Case 1:20-cv-23381-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 12 of 27
13 

37324261.1 

47. The real Coral Castle markets and advertises using nautical/beach motifs and 

castle structures to promote the location and their museum services. As noted above, Plaintiff’s 

‘447 Registration for its logo includes both nautical and castle elements. 

48. Upon information and belief, and according to promotions surrounding the 

release, VCC may have been intended by EGI to be a representation of a modern day Atlantis. 

See Ex. B. (“Fortnite Reveals Coral Castle, And It’s A Tiny Atlantis,” GameSpot, August 8, 

2020; “'Fortnite' Map Update Adds Coral Castle, But Don't Call It Atlantis,” NewsGeek, August 

1, 2020). 

49. In fact, the whole theme of “Chapter 2, Season 3” of Fortnite: Battle Royale is 

geared around the DC Comics character “Aquaman,” as portrayed by Jason Momoa in the 2018 

movie of the same name. A promotional image showing the Momoa incarnation of Aquaman as 

a playable character in Fortnite: Battle Royale is shown below: 

50. In the movie, and in the comic books, Aquaman’s home under the ocean is called 

“Atlantis.” 

Case 1:20-cv-23381-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 13 of 27
14 

37324261.1 

51. Upon information and belief, rather than call this new location “Atlantis,” EGI 

intentionally chose to call it “Coral Castle,” in clear and willful violation of Plaintiff’s rights in 

the Trademarks. 

52. EGI is utilizing the vast goodwill associated with the Trademarks to promote the 

nautical theme of Chapter 2 Season 3 of Fortnite: Battle Royale, and to promote sales of VBucks and Battle Passes, without the consent or approval of CCI, and without compensation to 

CCI. 

COUNT I 

[TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT UNDER 15 U.S.C. § 1114] 

53. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 52 as if fully set forth herein. 

54. Plaintiff is the owner of the ‘446 Registration for the mark CORAL CASTLE and 

the ‘447 Registration for the mark CORAL CASTLE MUSEUM EST. 1923 ~ MIAMI, FL (And 

Design) (collectively, the “Trademarks”). 

55. The ‘446 and ‘447 Registrations are valid and subsisting. 

56. The Trademarks are inherently distinctive as used in connection with museum 

services and related retail services. 

57. Plaintiff has developed and maintained substantial secondary meaning in the 

Trademarks as used in connection with museum services and related retail services. 

58. Defendant, without Plaintiff’s consent, has used reproductions, counterfeits, 

copies and/or colorable imitations of the Trademarks in commerce or in connection with the sale, 

offering for sale, distribution and/or advertising of Defendant’s goods and services, and such use 

is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, and/or to deceive. 

Case 1:20-cv-23381-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 14 of 27
15 

37324261.1 

59. Defendant’s use of the mark “Coral Castle” as a Location in Fortnite: Battle 

Royale is likely to cause confusion, mistake or to deceive the public as to the affiliation, 

connection or association of Defendant and its goods and services with Plaintiff. 

60. The likelihood of confusion is only exacerbated by the fact that Fortnite: Battle 

Royale and the real Coral Castle share common marketing and advertising themes, such as 

castles and nautical elements. Specifically, due to these common themes, purchasers are more 

likely to believe that the “Coral Castle” Location in Fortnite: Battle Royale is authorized, 

approved and/or sponsored by Plaintiff. 

61. Defendant has used the Trademarks to generate significant income by selling, 

inter alia, V-Bucks and Battle Passes for Chapter 2, Season 3 of Fortnite: Battle Royale, using 

the fame of Plaintiff’s Trademarks to stay relevant to current players, and to incentivize those 

players to continue playing Fortnite: Battle Royale, impliedly representing that Plaintiff 

consented to Defendant’s use of the Trademarks, intentionally causing the erroneous public 

association between Fortnite: Battle Royale and Plaintiff, and creating the false impression that 

Plaintiff has endorsed Fortnite: Battle Royale. 

62. By reason of Defendant’s acts alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered and will suffer 

damage to its business, reputation and goodwill. Additionally, Plaintiff has suffered and will 

suffer the loss of sales and profits that it would have made but for Defendant’s acts. 

63. Defendant’s conduct constitutes willful trademark infringement pursuant to 15 

U.S.C. § 1114(1). Defendant’s conduct was intended to cause confusion, has caused confusion, 

and will continue to cause confusion unless enjoined. 

64. For each completed act of trademark infringement, Plaintiff is entitled to recover 

its actual damages as well as Defendant’s profits from such infringement. 

Case 1:20-cv-23381-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 15 of 27
16 

37324261.1 

65. Defendant continues to do the acts complained of herein, and unless restrained 

and enjoined will continue to do so, all to Plaintiff’s irreparable damage. It would be difficult to 

ascertain the amount of compensation that could afford Plaintiff adequate relief for such 

continuing acts. Plaintiff’s remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for the threatened 

injuries. Monetary relief alone is not adequate to address fully the irreparable injury that 

Defendant’s illegal actions have caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff if not enjoined. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff CCI requests judgment against Defendant EGI for monetary 

damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and such further relief as the Court deems proper. 

COUNT II 

[TRADEMARK DILUTION UNDER 15 U.S.C. § 1125(C)] 

66. Plaintiff repeats and re-allege paragraphs 1-52 as if fully set forth herein. 

67. By virtue of the popularity and renown of Coral Castle, the Trademarks have 

become distinctive and famous within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). 

68. Defendant’s conduct dilutes the distinctive quality of the Trademarks in violation 

of Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). 

69. Defendant’s conduct and actions have lessened the capacity of the Trademarks to 

function as indicators of source, constituting dilution by blurring. 

70. Defendant did not credit Plaintiff, or seek their consent, for the inclusion of the 

Location “Coral Castle” within Fortnite: Battle Royale. 

71. Defendant’s acts have been deliberate, willful, intentional, and purposeful to 

exploit Plaintiff’s rights in the Trademarks for their own personal gain. 

72. Defendant continues to advertise, promote, market, sell and offer for sale VBucks and Battle Passes for Chapter 2, Season 3 of Fortnite: Battle Royale including the 

Case 1:20-cv-23381-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 16 of 27
17 

37324261.1 

Location “Coral Castle,” and unless restrained and enjoined, will continue to do so to Plaintiff’s 

irreparable damage. 

73. Defendant’s conduct is causing and, unless enjoined and restrained by this Court, 

will continue to cause Plaintiff great and irreparable injury that cannot be compensated or 

measured in money. Plaintiff thus has no adequate remedy at law and is entitled to injunctive 

relief, prohibiting further dilution of the Trademarks. 

74. Because of the willful nature of Defendant’s wrongful acts, Plaintiff is entitled to 

an award of treble damages and increased profits pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117. 

75. Plaintiff is also entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees and costs of suit pursuant to 

15 U.S.C. § 1117. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff CCI requests judgment against Defendant EGI for monetary 

damages, interest, costs, and such further relief as the Court deems proper. 

COUNT III 

[UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER 15 U.S.C. § 1125(A)] 

76. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges Paragraphs 1-52 as if fully set forth herein. 

77. Plaintiff is the owner of the ‘446 and ‘447 Registrations, as well as owner of all 

common law rights in and to the Trademarks. 

78. The Trademarks are inherently distinctive as used in connection with museum 

services and related retail services. 

79. Plaintiff has developed and maintained substantial secondary meaning in the 

Trademarks as used in connection with museum services and related retail services. 

80. Defendant, without Plaintiff’s consent, has used reproductions, counterfeits, 

copies and/or colorable imitations of the Trademarks in commerce or in connection with the sale, 

Case 1:20-cv-23381-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 17 of 27
18 

37324261.1 

offering for sale, distribution and/or advertising of Defendant’s goods and services, and such use 

is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, and/or to deceive. 

81. Defendant’s use of the mark “Coral Castle” as a Location in Fortnite: Battle 

Royale is likely to cause confusion, mistake or to deceive the public as to the affiliation, 

connection or association of Defendant and its goods and services with Plaintiff. 

82. The likelihood of confusion is only exacerbated by the fact that Fortnite: Battle 

Royale and the real Coral Castle share common marketing and advertising themes, such as 

castles and nautical elements. Specifically, due to these common themes, purchasers are more 

likely to believe that the “Coral Castle” Location in Fortnite: Battle Royale is authorized, 

approved and/or sponsored by Plaintiff. 

83. Defendant has used the Trademarks to generate significant income by selling, 

inter alia, V-Bucks and Battle Passes for Chapter 2, Season 3 of Fortnite: Battle Royale, using 

the fame of Plaintiff’s Trademarks to stay relevant to current players, and to incentivize those 

players to continue playing Fortnite: Battle Royale, impliedly representing that Plaintiff 

consented to Defendant’s use of the Trademarks, intentionally causing the erroneous public 

association between Fortnite: Battle Royale and Plaintiff, and creating the false impression that 

Plaintiff has endorsed Fortnite: Battle Royale. 

84. By reason of Defendant’s acts alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered and will suffer 

damage to its business, reputation and goodwill. Additionally, Plaintiff has suffered and will 

suffer the loss of sales and profits that it would have made but for Defendant’s acts. 

85. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s wrongful acts, Plaintiff has 

suffered and continues to suffer and/or is likely to suffer damage to its trademarks, business 

Case 1:20-cv-23381-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 18 of 27
19 

37324261.1 

reputation and goodwill. Defendant will continue, unless restrained, to conduct its business 

using the infringing mark “Coral Castle,” causing irreparable damage to Plaintiff. 

86. Defendant’s conduct constitutes unfair competition pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 

1125(a). Defendant’s conduct was intended to cause confusion, has caused confusion, and will 

continue to cause confusion unless enjoined. 

87. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and is entitled to an injunction restraining 

Defendant and any of its officers, agents, servants, licensees, and employees, and all persons 

acting in concert with Defendant, from engaging in further acts of false designation of origin, 

affiliation or sponsorship. 

88. Plaintiff is further entitled to recover from Defendant the actual damages that it 

sustained and/or is likely to sustain as a result of Defendant’s wrongful acts. Plaintiff is unable 

to ascertain the full extent of the monetary damages that it has suffered and/or is likely to suffer 

by reason of Defendant’s acts of false designation of origin, affiliation or endorsement. 

89. Plaintiffs remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for the threatened 

injuries. Monetary relief alone is not adequate to address fully the irreparable injury that 

Defendant’s illegal actions have caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff if not enjoined. 

90. Plaintiff is further entitled to recover from Defendant the gains, profits and 

advantages that Defendant has obtained as a result of its wrongful acts. Plaintiff is unable to 

ascertain the extent of the gains, profits, and advantages that Defendant has realized by reason of 

its acts of false designation of origin, affiliation or endorsement. 

91. Because of the willful nature of Defendant’s wrongful acts, Plaintiff is entitled to 

an award of treble damages and increased profits pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117. 

Case 1:20-cv-23381-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 19 of 27
20 

37324261.1 

92. Plaintiff is also entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees and costs of suit pursuant to 

15 U.S.C. § 1117. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendant EGI for monetary 

damages, interest, costs, and such further relief as the Court deems proper. 

COUNT IV 

[UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER FLORIDA COMMON LAW] 

93. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges Paragraphs 1-52 as if fully set forth herein. 

94. Plaintiff owns and enjoys common law trademark rights in the Trademarks in the 

State of Florida, and throughout the United States. 

95. The Trademarks operate as indicators of source and/or origin, particularly when 

used in interstate commerce. Moreover, the Trademarks have acquired distinctiveness via 

secondary meaning. 

96. Defendant, through their use, display and copying of the Trademarks, has without 

authorization, in connection with their goods and/or services in commerce, made or contributed 

to the making of false designations of origin, false or misleading descriptions of fact, and/or false 

or misleading representations of fact, which are likely to cause confusion, mistake, or to deceive 

as to the affiliation, connection or association of Defendant with Plaintiff, and/or as to the origin, 

sponsorship or approval of Defendant’s goods and services in violation of the common law of 

the State of Florida. 

97. Consumers are likely to purchase video games and video game services from 

Defendant believing that Defendant is affiliated, connected or associated with Plaintiff, resulting 

in a loss of goodwill to Plaintiff. 

98. Defendant’s acts as set forth herein constitute unfair competition, and/or induce or 

contribute to acts of unfair competition. 

Case 1:20-cv-23381-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 20 of 27
21 

37324261.1 

99. Defendant’s unfair acts have been committed in bad faith and with the intent to 

cause confusion, mistake and/or to deceive. 

100. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff has been, and is 

likely to be, substantially injured in its business including harm to its goodwill and reputation 

and the loss of revenues and profits. 

101. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s acts of unfair competition are, and have 

been, oppressive, fraudulent and malicious, thus entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages. 

102. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law because the Trademarks are unique and 

represent to the public Plaintiff’s identity, reputation, and goodwill, such that damages alone 

cannot fully compensate Plaintiff for Defendant’s misconduct. 

103. Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendant and those acting in concert with them 

will continue to infringe Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights, to Plaintiff’s irreparable injury. 

This threat of future injury to Plaintiff’s business identity, goodwill, and reputation requires 

injunctive relief to prevent Defendant’s continued use of the Trademarks, and/or marks 

confusingly similar thereto, and to ameliorate and mitigate Plaintiff’s injuries. 

104. Upon information and belief, Defendant has engaged in the above-referenced acts 

of unfair competition with knowledge of Plaintiff’s exclusive intellectual property rights, and 

Defendant will continue in such acts unless enjoined by this Court. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff CCI requests judgment against Defendant EGI for monetary 

damages, interest, costs, and such further relief as the Court deems proper. 

Case 1:20-cv-23381-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 21 of 27
22 

37324261.1 

COUNT V 

[VIOLATION OF FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT] 

105. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges Paragraphs 1-52 as if fully set forth herein. 

106. Defendant’s use of the Trademarks, or colorable imitations thereof, are deceptive 

and unfair practices under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (F.S.A. § 501.201 

et seq.). 

107. Specifically, Defendant’s use of the Trademarks, and attempt to profit from the 

sale of video games and video game services to third parties go against public policy and are 

immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. 

108. As a direct result of Defendant’s deceptive and unfair practices, Plaintiff has been, 

and continues to be, damaged by Defendant’s use of the Trademarks, and attempts to profit from 

the sale of the infringing products and services. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff CCI requests judgment against Defendant EGI for monetary 

damages, interest, costs, and such further relief as the Court deems proper. 

COUNT VI 

[VIOLATION OF FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT] 

109. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges Paragraphs 1-52 as if fully set forth herein. 

110. Plaintiff has invested substantial time, labor and money in the operation of the 

museum and tourist attraction called Coral Castle, and has accordingly developed substantial 

goodwill in connection with the Trademarks. 

111. Defendant has wrongfully misappropriated Plaintiff’s goodwill, and has profited 

from and received certain other benefits as a result of such wrongful misappropriation. 

112. Defendant has been unjustly enriched at Plaintiff’s expense. 

Case 1:20-cv-23381-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 22 of 27
23 

37324261.1 

113. It would be inequitable to allow Defendant to retain the profits and other benefits 

it acquired through its wrongful actions. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff CCI requests judgment against Defendant EGI for monetary 

damages, interest, costs, and such further relief as the Court deems proper. 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff CCI respectfully requests that this 

Court enter preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against Defendant EGI, as well as its 

employee and/or agents, awarding the following relief: 

A. Entry of a judgment that: 

1. Defendant has infringed Plaintiff’s federal trademark rights in the Trademarks by 

causing a likelihood of confusion; 

2. Defendant’s sale of the goods and services including the Trademarks, constitutes 

dilution by blurring under Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act; 

3. Defendant’s sale of the goods and services including the Trademarks, constitutes 

unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act; 

4. Defendant has engaged in common law unfair competition, through the sale of 

goods and services using including the Trademarks, and/or goods and services related thereto; 

5. Defendant has engaged in deceptive and unfair trade practices in the State of 

Florida (under the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act), through the sale of goods and 

services including the Trademarks, and/or goods and services related thereto; 

6. Defendant has been unjustly enriched by the sale of goods and services including 

the Trademarks, and/or goods and services related thereto. 

Case 1:20-cv-23381-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 23 of 27
24 

37324261.1 

B. Entry of judgment that Defendant’s acts of trademark infringement and unfair 

competition detailed herein have been, and continue to be, willful and deliberate. 

C. Entry of preliminarily and permanent injunctions enjoining Defendant, their 

agents, servants and employees, and those people in active concert or participation with it from: 

1. using, infringing, contributing to, or inducing infringement of the 

Trademarks; 

2. using any false designation, description or representation regarding the 

source or sponsorship of its goods and/or services, or stating or implying that Defendant or its 

agents are connected with the goods and/or services of Plaintiff, thereby damaging Plaintiff’s 

goodwill and reputation; 

3. causing a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding as to the source or 

sponsorship of Defendant’s business and/or Defendant’s goods or services, including but not 

limited to causing a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding as to Defendant’s affiliation, 

connection or association with Plaintiff or any of Plaintiff’s goods and/or services; and, 

4. otherwise infringing Plaintiff’s common law and registered trademarks 

and service marks, or otherwise unfairly competing with Plaintiff. 

D. Entry of judgment requiring Defendant to offer up for destruction all articles, 

displays, advertisements, labels, signs, prints, packages, packaging, wrappers, receptacles, 

brochures, catalogs, plates, molds, uniforms, and logo items in its possession or control which 

display a product which is identical to, or confusingly similar with, Plaintiff’s Trademarks, as 

provided by Section 36 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1118). 

E. Entry of judgment requiring Defendant to file with the Court and to serve upon 

Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days after entry of any injunction or order issued herein, a 

written report, under oath, setting forth in detail the manner in which it has complied with such 

injunction or order pursuant to Section 34 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1116(a)). 

F. Entry of judgment: 

1. awarding Plaintiff such actual damages as it has sustained by reason of 

Defendant’s acts of trademark infringement in violation of Section 32 of the Lanham Act (15 

Case 1:20-cv-23381-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 24 of 27
25 

37324261.1 

U.S.C. §1114) (including, but not limited to, a disgorgement of Defendant’s profits, Plaintiff’s 

lost profits, and the costs of this action); 

2. awarding Plaintiff treble its actual damages for such trademark 

infringement; 

3. awarding Plaintiff its attorney’s fees in bringing and maintaining this 

action, which should be deemed exceptional, for such trademark infringement; and 

4. requiring Defendant to account to Plaintiff for any and all profits derived 

by it from sales of goods and services including the Trademarks, and to compensate Plaintiff for 

all damages sustained by reason of such trademark infringement and the other acts complained of 

herein; all pursuant to Section 35 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1117). 

G. Entry of judgment: 

1. awarding Plaintiff such actual damages as it has sustained by reason of 

Defendant’s acts of dilution in violation of Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 

§1125(c)) (including, but not limited to, a disgorgement of Defendant’s profits, Plaintiff’s lost 

profits, and the costs of this action); 

2. awarding Plaintiff treble its actual damages or such acts of dilution; 

3. awarding Plaintiff its attorney’s fees in bringing and maintaining this 

action, which should be deemed exceptional, for such acts of dilution; and 

4. requiring Defendant to account to Plaintiff for any and all profits derived 

by it from sales of goods and services including the Trademarks, and to compensate Plaintiff for 

all damages sustained by reason of such acts of dilution and the other acts complained of herein; 

all pursuant to Section 35 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1117). 

H. Entry of judgment: 

1. awarding Plaintiff such actual damages as it has sustained by reason of 

Defendant’s acts of unfair competition in violation of Section 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act (15 

U.S.C. §1125(a)(1)(A)) (including, but not limited to, a disgorgement of Defendant’s profits, 

Plaintiff’s lost profits, and the costs of this action); 

2. awarding Plaintiff treble its actual damages or such acts of unfair 

competition; 

3. awarding Plaintiff its attorney’s fees in bringing and maintaining this 

action, which should be deemed exceptional, for such acts of unfair competition; and 

4. requiring Defendant to account to Plaintiff for any and all profits derived 

by it from sales of goods and services including the Trademarks, and to compensate Plaintiff for 

Case 1:20-cv-23381-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 25 of 27
26 

37324261.1 

all damages sustained by reason of such acts of unfair competition and the other acts complained 

of herein; all pursuant to Section 35 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1117). 

I. Entry of judgment ordering Defendant to compensate Plaintiff for the advertising 

or other expenses necessary to dispel any confusion caused by Defendant’s trademark 

infringement, unfair competition and other unlawful acts (including but not limited to the costs 

of an appropriate corrective advertising campaign), pursuant to Section 35 of the Lanham Act 

(15 U.S.C. §1117). 

J. Entry of judgment awarding Plaintiff such damages as it has sustained by reason 

of Defendant’s acts of common law unfair competition, including but not limited to 

compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and/or punitive damages. 

K. Entry of judgment awarding Plaintiff such damages as it has sustained by reason 

of Defendant’s deceptive and unfair trade practices, including but not limited to compensatory 

damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and/or punitive damages. 

L. Entry of judgment awarding Plaintiff the amount of Defendant’s unjust 

enrichment. 

M. Affording Plaintiff such further and other relief as this Court may deem just and 

proper. 

 

Case 1:20-cv-23381-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 26 of 27
27 

37324261.1 

JURY DEMAND 

Plaintiff demands a jury for all issues triable to a jury. 

Dated: August 13, 2020 

Respectfully submitted, 

SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR 

LLP 

/s/ Steven M. Appelbaum

Steven M. Appelbaum 

Florida Bar No. 71399 

701 Brickell Avenue, 17th Floor 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone: (305) 428-4519 

Email: steven.appelbaum@saul.com; 

mia-ctdocs@saul.com; 

Jessica.Barrero@saul.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

OF COUNSEL 

Darius C. Gambino (PA 83496) 

1500 Market Street, 38th Floor 

Philadelphia, PA 19102 

Telephone: (215) 972-7173 

Email: darius.gambino@saul.com

Case 1:20-cv-23381-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 27 of 27