UN ITED STATESDISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

M iam iDivision

CaseNum ber:22-24119-CIV-M ORENO

GR OPCO,LLC,

Plaintiff,

VS.

ELEVEN IpHOLDINGs,LLc,GM ssy

CREEK LLc,andcs IRw m LLc,

Defendants.

ORDER GM NTING M OTION TO DISM ISS TH IRD COUNTERCLAIM

(TM DEM ARK INFRINGEM ENT UNDER FLORIDA LAm AND DENYING M OTION

TO DISM ISSFIRST COUNTERCLM M (FEDEM L TRADEM ARK INFRINGEM ENT)

TH IS CAUSE cam ebeforetheCourtuponGR Opco,LLC'SM otiontoDism issElevenIP

Holdings,LLC'SFirstandThirdCounterclaim s.Forthereasonssetforthbelow,theCourtdenies

themotiontodismissandmotionformoredefinitestatementonthefirstcounterclaim (trademark

infringementinviolationofSection32ofLanham Act,15U.S.C.j1114),butgrantsthemotion

todismissthethirdcounterclaim (trademarkinfringementinviolationofFla.Stat.j495.131.).

FACTS

GR OPCO ownstheE1IEVEN brand andE1IEVEN Clubin M iam i,Florida.M orethan

6yearsago,GR OPCO appliedforandwasgranted afederaltradem arkregistrationforuseofits

<IEIIEVEN''markinconnectionwithprovidingnightclubandotherservices(i.e.,restaurantand

barservices,selwing offood and drinksatanightclub,providing temporary accom modation at

hotel).lnadditiontoowningandusingtheEIIEVEN mark,GR OPCO ownsandlicensestwo

additionalStEleven''m arks. First,GR OPCO ownstheGtEleven 1111''brand.W hich isused fora

Case 1:22-cv-24119-FAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2023 Page 1 of 11
hotelinTexas.ThewebsitefortheEleven111hasbeenonlinesincelate2010.Second,GR OPCO

ownstheçsEleventhAvenueHotel''brand,whichisaD enverhotel.TheEleventhAvenueHotel's

websitehasbeenonlinesinceAugust2011.

ELEVEN IP ownsand operatesthewebsitewww.elevenexperience.com,thedom ain for

whichELEVEN IPregisteredinOctober2011.ELEVEN IPofferscustom erstheabilitytoreselwe

staysatremote locationsin private homes,and to book excursions,such asslciing orfishing.

ELEVEN IP hasm ade severalfilingswith theU.S.Tradem ark Officein which ithasclaim ed,

basedon itswebsiteuse,thatitoperatesluxury hotels,canyingthennm eSCELEVEN''.OnApril

2011,ELEVEN IP applied foratradem ark registration numberforoperating hotelstmderthe

(E LEVEN'''m ark. On Novem ber 2012,ELEVEN P - in pursuance of a federaltradem ark

registration- statedtotheU.S.Trademark OfficethatELEVEN IP beganproviding luxuryhotel

accom modationsundertheELEVEN m arksonNovem ber11,2011.ELEVEN IP alsostatedthat

itbeganusingtheELEVEN mark onN ovember11,2011,toprovidet'travelagencyservices''and

to(çarrangleq''andlscoordinate''excursions.OnDecember25,2012,theU.S.TrademarkOffice

issuedELEVEN 1P'strademark (s<subjectTrademarkRegistration'')underU.S.Registration

Nlzm ber4265159. GR OPCO allegesthatELEVEN IP doesnotope'ratehotels,butratheroffer

booldngandtravelagencyservices.

In January 2021, GR OPCO nnnounced plans to build two EllEvEN -branded

condom inium towersacrossfrom itsE1IEVEN nightclub.Constnzction onthefirsttowerbegan

in November2021,and tmitsin thesecond tow erarebeing offered forsaleatpre-construction

prices.lnsuppol'tofGR OPCO'Scondom inium plans,GR OPCO filedapplicationswiththeU.S.

Tradem ark OfficeseekingtocoveruseoftheE1IEVEN m ark with condominium-relatedselwes

(e.g.,condominiummanagement,réalestatedevelopment,rentalofrealestate,andswimmingpool

Case 1:22-cv-24119-FAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2023 Page 2 of 11
management).TheseapplicationswerefiledbetweenApril2020andAugust2020.Thefirstof

GR OPCO'StrademarkapplicationswaspublishedintheTrademarkOffice'sOfhcialGazetein

January2022.

InM arch2022,ELEVEN IP sentGR OPCO acease-and-desistletter,dem andingthatGR

OPCO abandon any planneduse ofitsEIIEVEN m ark relating to the servicescovered by GR

OPCO 'Strademark applications. lfGR OPCO refused to comply,ELEVEN IP warned thatit

wouldseekinjunctivereliefanddamagesincoul't.Twomonthsaflersendingthedemandletter,

ELEVEN IP sledapetitionwiththeU .S.Tradem arkOffceseekingtocanceloneofGR OPCO'S

trademark registrations. Over the following m onths,ELEVEN IP initiated five additional

adm inistrativeproceedingsagainstGR OPCO.

OnJune30,2022,ELEVEN IPobjectedagaintoGR OPCO'SuseoftheEIIEVEN mark

andwarnedofapotentialinfringem entlawsuitagainstGR OPCO.GR OPCO theninstitutedthe

instantcaseagainstELEVEN lP,seekingdeclaratoryreliefandjudicialresolution aboutGR

OPCO'SrighttocontinuetouseitsE1IEVEN m ark initsdesiredways.

GR OPCO filed its Complaint,asse/ing againstDefendantsthree counts:declaratory

judgmentofnon-infringementandnounfaircompetition(Count1);rectificationoftheFederal

TrademarkRegister(Count2);andunfaircompetitionunderfederal1aw (Count3).ELEVEN IP

soughttodismissCount2,whichtheCourtdenied.

GRO OPCO movestodismissELEVEN 1P'sfirstcounterclaim (trademarkinfringement

underLanham Act),arguingthatELEVEN 1P'sAmorphousM arksincludeallegedcommonlaw

rightsin tradem m'ksnotcovered by afederaltradem ark registration. GR OPCO alsom ovesto

dismissELEVEN 1P'sthirdcounterclaim (trademarkinfringementunderFloridaStatute)with

Case 1:22-cv-24119-FAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2023 Page 3 of 11
prejudicebecausefilingaclaim fortrademarkinfringementtmderFla.Stat.j495.001requiresa

Florida-issuedtradem ark,whichELEVEN IP lacks.l

STANDARD OF REVIEW

a. StandardformotionstodismissunderRule12(b)(6)

lndecidingaRule12(b)(6)motiontodismissforfailuretostateaclaim theCourt

considersonlythefourcornersofthecomplaint.A coul'tm ustacceptastruethefactsasset

forthinthecomplaint.

''Tosulwiveam otiontodism iss,plaintiffsmustdomorethanm erely statelegal

conclusionsy''insteadplaintiffsmust''allegesom especificfactualbasisforthoseconclusionsor

facedismissaloftheirdaims.''Jacksonv.BelsouthTelecomms.,372F.3d1250,1263(11thCir.

2004).Whenrulingonamotiontodismiss,acourtmustview thecomplaintinthelightmost

favorabletotheplaintiffandaccepttheplaintiffswell-pleadedfactsastrue.SeeSt.Joseph's

Hosp.,Inc.v.Hosp.Corp.ofuqm.,795F.2d948,953(11thCir.1986).Thistenet,however,does

notapplytolegalconclusions.SeeAshcrojtv.lqbal,556U.S.662,129S.Ct.1937,1949,173

L.Ed.2d868(2009).Moreover,''gwjhilelegalconclusionscanprovidetheframeworkofa

complaint,theymustbesupportedbyfactualallegations.''Id at1950.Those''gtlactual

allegationsmustbeenoughtoraisearighttoreliefabovethespeculativelevelontheasstunption

thata1lofthecomplaint'sallegationsaretnze.''BellAtl.Corp.v.Twombly,550U.S.544,545,

127S.Ct.1955,167L.Ed.2d929(2007).Inshort,thecomplaintmustnotmerelyallege

lGR OPCO alsomovesforamoredefinitestatementastothecounterclaim todetenninehow andwhatitis

purportedlyinfringingsoitmayrespondappropriately.

4

Case 1:22-cv-24119-FAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2023 Page 4 of 11
m isconduct,butmustdem onstratethatthepleaderisentitledtorelief SeeIqbal,129S.Ct.at

DISCUSSION

GROPCOrequeststhisCourttodismisswithprejudicecounterclaim oneandthree,and

orderELEVEN IP tore-pleaditsfirstcounterclaim witham oredefinitestatem enttowhichGR

OPCO canrespond.TheCourtwilladdresseach ofthethreerequests.

a. FirstCounterclaim (lnfringementofRegisteredTrademarltsunderSection32of

theLanham Act,15U.STC.j1114)

GR OPCO arguesthatELEVEN IP'stirstcotmterclaim failstom eetthepleading

standardoftrademarkinfringementtmder15USC j1114.Toproperlystateaclaim for

trademarkinfringementunder15USC j1114(1)(a),G$aplaintiffmustalegethat:(1)themarkat

issuehaspriority,(2)thedefendantusedthemarkincommerce,and(3)thedefendant'smarkis

likelytocauseconsum erconfusion.''Cole-parmerInstrumentCo.LLC v.Pro.Labs.,Inc.,568

F.Supp.3d1307,1315(S.D.Fla.2021),.seealsoInt'lCosmeticsExck,Inc.,v.GapardisHealth

drBeauty,Inc.,303F.3d1242(11thCir.2002).

ELEVEN IP adequatelyallegeseachofthethreeelem ents.ELEVEN IP allegesthatit

hadpriorrightswithrespectto GR OPCO,andidentifiesthefederallyregisteredtradem arksthat

itowns,includingtherelevantservices.(Colmtercl.!19($ûlnrecognitionofElevenIP'srights,

theUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffce(CGUSPTO'')hasgrantedittrademarkregistrations

forvariousELEVEN M arks...AttachedheretoasExhibitB arecopiesofEleven1P'stradem ark

Case 1:22-cv-24119-FAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2023 Page 5 of 11
registrations.''l.l;(Countercl.!(27:$OnOctober15,2019,GRfileda(statementofUse,''

claim ingafirst-use-in-comm ercedateofM arch 1,2014fora11selwices,including Iproviding

temporaryaccommodationathotel'(theçsAllegedHotelServices''l.).ELEVEN IPassertsthat

itsapplicationsforsuchtrademarkswereacceptedandregisteredbytheUSPTO.(Id.!!19-20,

31,59.)Finaly,ELEVEN IPassertsthatGR'splanneduseofE1IEVEN inconnectionwith

hotelandaccomm odationservicesislikelytocauseconfusion withELEVEN lP'spriorrights.

(Id.!62.).

GR OPCO doesnotarguethatELEVEN IP failedto allegeany ofthethreeelem ents,but

insteadarguesthatELEVEN IP alleges(çAm orphousM arks''thatincludecom m on1aw rightsin

tradem arksnotcoveredbyafederaltradem arkregistration.Further,GR OPCO statesthat

ELEVEN 1P'sfirstcounterclaim doesnot(1)identifytheregistrationsE1IEVEN puportedly

infringesnor(2)identifythegoodsorservicesELEVEN IPallegesarethebasisforEIIEVEN'S

jurportedinfringement.However,tosulwiveamotiontodismiss,itisnotevennecessaryfora

plaintifftoidentifypreciselywhich ofadefendant'sproductsallegedly infringeaplaintiffs

trademark.SeeIconHealthdnFitness,Inc.v.IFITNESS Inc.,2012U.S.Dist.LEXIS46824.

Courtshavefoundatradem arkclaim tobesufficientlypledwhenthecom plaintidentifiedthe

plaintiffstradem arksandpointedto ''specificwebsiteswiththeinfringingtradem arkusage''but

stoppedshortofidentifyingaspecificimageorproduct.fJ.(citinglber#ctl0,Inc.v.Cybernet

Ventures,Inc.,167F.Supp.2d1114,1122(C.D.Cal.zoolltholdingthecomplaint'salegations

werenot''hopelesslyvague''andputtheDefendantonnoticeofthenatureoftheclaimsl).ln

ELEVEN 1P'sComplaint,''E1IEVEN ''isidentifiedastheinâingingm arkbeingusedbytheGR

OPCO.(Countercl.!39(Cgfjurther,likeElevenlP,GRalsopromotesitsplannedhoteltlrough

. socialm edia,including onitsInstagram pageandYouTubechannelonwhichthelnfringing

Case 1:22-cv-24119-FAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2023 Page 6 of 11
E1IEVEN Marks,aswelastheterm Cç11,''areprominentlyfeatured'').Atthisstage,GR OPCO

hassufficientnoticeofwhatthissuitisabout:ELEVEN IP ownstheELEVEN tradem arks,

ELEVEN P eallegesthatGR OCPO knowingly usedinfringingm arks,andthatthisuseislikely

toconfuseconsum ers.ELEVEN IP haspledenoughtostateaplausibleclaim oftrademark

infringem entundertheLanham Act.Accordingly,theM otiontodism issELEVEN 1P'sfrst

counterclaim isdenied.

UnderRule12(e),''ga)partymaymoveforamoredefinitestatementofapleadingto

which aresponsivepleadingisallowedbutwhichissovagueorambiguousthatthepartycannot

reasonablypreparearesponse.''Fed.R.Civ.P.12(e).A courtwillgrantsuchamotionwhere

''aplaintiffsturbidcomplaintissoam biguoussuchthatitis'virtually impossibletoknow which

alegationsoffactareintendedtosupportwhichclaimts)forrelief.'''Zyburov.NCSPIUS,Inc.,

No.8:12-cv-1065-T-30TBM,2012U.S.Dist.LEXIS86741,at*2(M.D.Fla.June22,2012)

(quotingAndersonv.Dist.Bd ofTrs.Ofcent.Fla.Cvry.Col.,77F.3d364,366(11thCir.

1996)).''Thebasisforgrantingamotionformoredefinitestatementislmintelligibility,notlack

ofdetail;aslongasthedefendantisabletorespond,evenifonlywithsimpledenial,ingood

faith,withoutprejudice,thecomplaintisdeemedsuficient.''SECv.DigitalLightwave,Inc.,

196P.R.D.698,700(M .D.Fla.2000).Motionsforamoredefnitestatementaregeneraly

disfavoredinthefederalsystem inlightoftheliberalpleadinganddiscoveryrequirem entsofthe

FederalRules.''Nature'sHealthandNutvition,lnc.v.Nunez,2008U.S.Dist.LEXIS 80971,

2008WL4346329*1(S.D.Fla.zoo8ltcitingBBinTech.Co.,Lftfv.JAF,LLC.,242F.R.D.

632,640(S.D.Fla.2007)).

GR OPCO alsoarguesthatELEVEN 1P'sfirstcounterclaim needsam oredefinite

statement.lnNuljez,thecourtheldthatam oredefinitestatem entwasunnecessaryin a

7

Case 1:22-cv-24119-FAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2023 Page 7 of 11
trademarkdisputeinwhichthecomplaintallegedthattheplaintiffhad''acquiredquperiorrights

inlzis'NUNEZ marks,'andthatNatureHealth'sbrand'EPHDRASIM 'eithersoundslikeorwas

derivedfrom lettersorsoundelem entsof,oneorm oreofNunez'sbrands.''Xzfgcz,2008U.S.

Dist.LEXIS 80971,2008W L 4346329at*1.Thecourtfoundthoseallegationswere''notso

vagueandambiguousthattheplaintiffcnnnotbeexpectedtorespondingoodfaith orwithout

Prejudice.''ld.

LikeNuûez,theELEVEN IP haspledthatitownstheregistrationtotheELEVEN trademark

andthattheGROPCO'Sjuniortrademark,E1IEVEN,causesalikelihoodofconfusionwith

ELEVEN IP'sseniortradem arks.ELEVEN IPhaspledwithm oredetailandpartioularitythan

thedefendantinNuzez.ELEVEN IP'scom plaintisclearenoughtoputGR OPCO onnoticeof

thenatureoftheclaim ,tradem ark infringem entviolation,andthespecifictradem arkatissue,GR

OPCO'SE1IEVEN m ark.Thereisenoughinfonuationtoallow GR OPCO toformulatea

response.Accordingly,them otionforam oredefinitestatementisdenied.

b.ThirdCounterclaim (lnfringementofRegisteredTrademarksunderSection

495.001,Et.Seq-,FloridaStatutes)

GR OPCO arguesthatbecauseELEVEN IP doesnothaveaFlorida-issuedtradem ark

registration,dismissalwithprejudiceisproper.Theelçmentsofaclaim fortrademark

infringementunderFlorida1aw areasfolows:(1)plaintiffhasavalidtrademarkregistered

underFloridalaw;(2)defendantusedanidenticalorsimilarmarkincommercewithout

plaintiffsconsent;(3)defendants'usepostdatesplaintiffsuse;and(4)defendants'useislikelyto

causeconfusion.HaneysCc./J,Inc.v.Haney'sSmokehouse,lnc.,2004U.S.Dist.LEXIS24959

citingFla.Stat.j495.131;GreatS.Bankv.FirstS.Bank,625So.2d463,466-67n.4(Fla.1993)

8

Case 1:22-cv-24119-FAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2023 Page 8 of 11
(citingFla.Stat.j495.131andstatingthatfederalcase1aw interpretingfederaltrademarklaw is

tobegiven''duçconsiderationandgreatweight''wheninterpretingFlorida'strademarklawsl;

seealsoInternationalCosmeticsExch.,Inc.v.GapardisHealthdrBeauty,Inc.,303F.3d 1242,

1248(11thCir.2002);Davidoff& Cie,S.A.v.PLD Internat'lCorp.,263F.3d1297,1300-01

(11thCir.2001);PlanetaryMotion,Inc.v.Techsplosion,Inc.,261F.3d1188,1193(11thCir.

2001);McDonald'sCorp.v.Robertson,147F.3d1301,1307(11thCir.1998).

lfELEVEN IP doesnothaveaFlorida-issuedtradem ark,itcannotmeetthefirstelem ent

ofaclaim fortradem arkingingem entunderFloridalaw .ELEVEN IP doeswnotreply statingthat

GR OPCO ismistaken(thatitactualydoeshaveaFlorida-issuedtrademark),butinsteadargues

thatbecauseitstatesaclaim fortrademark infringementundertheLanham Act,ittransitively

alsostatesaclaim underFloridalaF .ELEVEN IP goesontocitecasesthatholdthatthe

analysisofFloridastatutoryand com m on1aw claim softradem arkinfringem entandunfair

com petition isthesam easunderfederaltradem arkinfringem entclaim .lnvestacorp,Inc.v.

ArabianInv.BankingCorp.(Investcorp)E.C.,931F.2d1519,1521(11thCir.1991).TheCourt

doesnotdisagree.However,whileitistnzethatCtgcjoul'tsmayuseananalysisoffederal

infringem entclaim sasa'm eastlringstick'inevaluatingthem eritsofstatelaw claimsoflm fair

com petition,''itisdifferenttoproceedandbringaclaim withouttherequisite-issuedtradem ark

itself.SeeSuntreeTechs.,Inc.v.EcosenseInt'l,Inc.,693F.3d1338,1345(11thCir.2012).

InSolid2l,Inc.v.UlysseNardin,USA fna,2019U.S.Dist.LEXIS227359,theCourt

encotmtersthissameargum ent.There,theplaintiffarguedthattheydidnotneedaFloridaissuedtradem arkbecause(CthelegalstandardsforFloridastatutoryandcomm on1aw claim sof

tradem arkinfringementandunfaircom petition''arethesame.1d.TheCourtfoundthatin light

ofFlorida'strademarkinfringementstatme,regardlessofwhetherthestandardsaresimilar(or

Case 1:22-cv-24119-FAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2023 Page 9 of 11
evenidentical),aplaintiffmustregisteritsmarkwiththeStateofFloridatohaveanactionable

Floridastatutorytradem arkinfringem entclaim .1d.Further,thecourtinSolid21foundthe

EleventhCircuitdecisionTaly-Ho,Incv.CoastCr?i@.Colege.Dist,889F.2d1018,1024(11th

Cir1989)instructive.There,theEleventhCircuitstatedthat,Itgcqommon1aw ownersof

unregisteredmarksarelimitedtocomm on1aw rem ediesininfringem entactions.1d.The

Floridastatutealsopermitsan''antidilution''claim undersection495.151.Thisprovision

pennitsanytrademarkowner,whetherregistered orunzegistered,toprohibiteitheranoncompetitor'sorcompetitor'suseofasimilarmarkifthereisalikelihoodofinjurytobusiness

reputationordilutionofthem ark'sdistinctivequality.''Accordingly,becauseELEVEN IP did

notdisputethefactthatitdoesnothavearegisteredFloridatradem ark,theCourtgrantsGR

OPCO'SrequesttodismissELEVEN 1P'stradem arkinfringementcounterclaim broughttmder

Floridalaw.

Lastly,ELEVEN IParguesthatGR OPCO hasnotm etitsburdenofshowingthat

dismissalwithprejudicewouldbewarranted,andthusevenifitsMotiontoDismiss

Counterclaim 3isgranted,itwouldbeaninappropriaterem edy.ELEVEN IP citesto Tequila

Watersv.Cityofsunrise,2022U.S.Dist.LEXIS61862,butthatcasedoesnotf'urthertheir

argument.There,thecourtdismissedtheplaintiffsclaim withoutprejudice.Thecourtheldthat

iftheplaintiffwasabletoallegepriorincidentstosupplem entherclaim ,thepleadingstandard

canbem et.Here,GR OPCO statesthatELEVEN IP doesnothaveaFlorida-issuedtradem ark.

ELEVEN IP islackingaFlorida-issuedtradem ark.Unliketheplaintiffin Waters,thereisno

clarification orallegationthatcanrectifythepleading;thefactthatitdoesnothaveaFloridaissuedtrademarkisfutile.Accordingly,thethirdcounterclaim isdismissedwithprejudice.

Case 1:22-cv-24119-FAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2023 Page 10 of 11
CON CLUSION

Accordingly,itisORDERED AND ADJUDGED thatthe M otion,is GM NTED IN

PART AN D DENIED IN PART consistentwiththisOrder.

DONEANDORDEREDinChambersatMiami,Florida,this VV ofNovember

2023.

FEDERI .M OREN O

D STATESDISTRICT JUDGE

Copiesfutmishedto:

CounselofRecord

Case 1:22-cv-24119-FAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2023 Page 11 of 11