UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

SINGH MANAGEMENT CO., LLC, 

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 15-CV-11478 

vs. HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN 

SINGH BUILDING COMPANY, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

_____________________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER CONFIRMING ARBITRATOR=S 

RULINGS ON PLAINTIFF=S TRADEMARK CLAIMS

This matter is presently before the Court on (1) defendants= motion for 

confirmation of the arbitrator=s trademark rulings [docket entry 70]; (2) plaintiff=s motion for 

confirmation of the arbitrator=s trademark rulings [docket entry 71]; and (3) plaintiff=s motion for 

permanent injunctive relief [docket entry 72]. Pursuant to E.D. Mich. 7.1(f)(2), the Court shall 

decide these motions without a hearing. 

In its September 11, 2015, opinion and order compelling arbitration in this matter, 

the Court stated: 

Plaintiff Singh Management Co., LLC, which is controlled 

by certain members of the Grewal family, alleges that defendants 

(certain other members of the Grewal family and entities they 

control and individuals they employ) are infringing its ASingh@

trademark by using the mark in their company names, in their 

websites, and in connection with advertising, promoting, offering 

and selling various real estate services. Plaintiff asserts claims for 

trademark infringement, unfair competition, and false designation 

of origin under federal and state law and under the Michigan 

Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff also alleges that defendants 

have violated its copyright in a certain photograph. For relief 

plaintiff seeks an injunction, damages, costs, interest, and attorney 

fees. 
* * * 

The parties agreed, and Judge Alexander ordered, that all disputes 

between the parties (both Aprior and subsequent@ to the date of the 

order) would be arbitrated B not only those Arelating in any way to 

the operation of Singh Companies,@ but also Aall other claims or 

defenses raised by any of the parties.@ This definition of the 

disputes to be arbitrated is all-encompassing and most certainly 

does include the new claims raised in the instant lawsuit over 

ownership of the Singh trademark as well as the alleged misuse of 

the copyrighted photograph. The use/misuse of the mark and 

photograph clearly relates to Athe operation of Singh Companies,@

and the use/misuse thereof obviously is the subject of a claim by a 

party. These claims, along with those raised in Grewal, must be 

arbitrated before Barry Howard because this is what the parties 

agreed to do and it is what the state court ordered. 

Singh Mgmt. Co., LLC v. Singh Bldg. Co., Inc., No. 15-CV-11478, 2015 WL 13039634, at *1, *3 

(E.D. Mich. Sept. 11, 2015). The Court ordered that A[a]ll claims raised in this case must be 

arbitrated before Barry Howard along with all claims raised in the [Oakland County] Grewal

matter. The Court retains jurisdiction to entertain post-arbitration motions to enter judgment on 

the arbitration award and for injunctive relief.@ Id. at *4. 

The Amore than 195 Parties . . . in the United States and India,@ Arbitration and 

Award p. 1 n.1, proceeded to arbitrate their long list of claims and counterclaims before retired 

Judge Howard. In an exceptionally thoughtful, painstakingly detailed, 103-page opinion, Judge 

Howard noted: 

After the Arbitrator was appointed by consent of the 

Parties, the Parties engaged in significant discovery over an 

extended period of time. A multitude of discovery disputes arose 

and the Arbitrator issued 24 Orders addressing discovery and the 

Arbitration process over a period of a year. The Parties 

exchanged hundreds of thousands of pages of discovery and 

conducted a number of depositions, including taking depositions in 

India. The Arbitration Hearing dates were adjourned on at least 

two occasions to permit additional discovery and to address 

concerns raised by the Parties regarding completion of expert 

opinions and expert discovery. 
3 

After the submission of Summary Disposition motions by 

the Defendants, which were denied with the limited exception of 

the motion raised by Defendant Attorney Clarkson, the Arbitration 

Hearing commenced on Monday, August 15, 2016. The hearing 

took place over a period of twelve days. The hearing was 

bifurcated with the first ten (10) days of the hearing (from August 

15, 2016 through August 29, 2016) being spent presenting 

evidence and testimony concerning the Parties= state law claims set 

forth in Plaintiffs= Complaint and Defendants= Counterclaim. The 

remaining two (2) days of the hearing (which proceeded on 

September 19th and 20th) addressed the Defendants= Federal Court 

Trademark claims. 

Id. at 4-5. 

After the parties submitted post-arbitration briefs and answered Judge Howard=s 

requests for clarification of certain issues, Judge Howard issued his lengthy opinion and award. 

For reasons explained in detail at pages 93-101, Judge Howard found in plaintiff=s favor on its 

trademark claims. Specifically, he found that plaintiff owns the Aregistered stylized Singh 

Mark,@ that defendants are prohibited from using this mark, that defendants= use of the Signh 

name by itself creates confusion in the marketplace, that defendants= use of the Signh name Ain 

the name of a business entity provided that the name is used as the surname given to [defendants] 

in conjunction with their full names@ would not cause confusion, and that plaintiff is not entitled 

to damages but that Aa Permanent Inunction preventing [defendants=] use of the stylized Singh 

mark [should] be entered by the Federal Court in the Trademark Action.@ Id. at 97-101. Judge 

Howard further explained: 

The Arbitrator finds that the Frisch factors . . . lead[] to the 

conclusion that consumers would likely be confused if 

[defendants] continued to use the name ASingh@ alone in the names 

of their business entities which are unrelated to those of the 

[plaintiff].12/ However, the Arbitrator does find that as their given 

surname, the [defendants] may use the name ASingh@ in the name 

of a business entity provided that the name is used as the surname 
4 

given to [defendants] in conjunction with their full names. 

For example, the Arbitrator finds that [defendants] are 

precluded from operating a business under the name Singh 

Building Company, Inc., but finds that it would not infringe on 

[plaintiff=s] rights if the name ADarshan Singh Grewal Building 

Company, Inc.@ was used. 

_____________________ 

12/ When referencing the use of the word ASingh@ alone in the 

business entity name, the Arbitrator is referring to the use of the 

word ASingh@ as the only identifying name to describe the type of 

service being offered, such as those entities [defendants] created 

after their terminations which are Defendants in the Trademark 

Action, i.e. Singh Building Company, Inc., Singh Development 

Company, Inc.[,] Singh Group, LLC, Singh Group II, LLC, Singh 

Lending LLC d/b/a Team Singh, Singh Mortgage Group, LLC[,] 

Singh Property Management, LLC and Singh Real Estate, LLC. 

It is the use of the name ASingh@ alone (without more to distinguish 

the business from [plaintiff=s] operations) that the Arbitrator finds 

is likely to cause confusion. 

Id. at 100 & n.12. In a subsequent order, Judge Howard clarified that defendants should be 

enjoined Afrom using the name >Singh= alone as the only identifying proper noun used to describe 

their business.@ 

In the motions now before the Court, defendants seek an order confirming the 

arbitrator=s award and enjoining them from using the stylized Singh mark and Afrom using the 

name >Signh= alone as the only identifying proper noun used to describe their business.@ See 

proposed order attached as Ex. 23 to defendants= motion for confirmation [docket entry 70]. 

Plaintiff also seeks confirmation of the arbitrator=s award, but argues that the Court should 

prohibit defendants not only from using the stylized Singh mark but also from Aus[ing] the term 

>Singh= in a manner likely, if not certain, to cause confusion with Singh B i.e. by naming 

companies >Singh Homes Copperwood, LLC= >Brandywine Singh, LLC,= or >Singh of North 

Oaks, LLC.=@ Pl.=s Br. In Support of Its Motion to Confirm the Arbitration Award at 6. 
5 

Plaintiff requests the entry of an injunction enjoining defendants Afrom using the SINGH Mark 

or any reproduction or confusingly similar variations thereof@ and Afrom using the Singh name in 

any manner likely to cause confusion with Plaintiff Singh and the SINGH Mark, including by 

using the name Singh alone or apart from Defendants= whole name.@ Pl.=s Mot. for Permanent 

Injunctive Relief, Ex. A. 

As the Court noted in its earlier order, both federal and state public policy favors 

arbitration Aas a speedy, fair, and efficient alternative to litigation. See, e.g., Moses H. Cone 

Mem=l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983) (noting the Aliberal federal policy 

favoring arbitration agreements@); Rooyakker & Sitz, P.L.L.C. v. Plante & Moran, P.L.L.C., 276 

Mich. App. 146, 155 (2007).@ Singh Mgmt. Co., 2015 WL 13039634, at *2. In the present 

case, plaintiff and defendants both seek confirmation of the arbitrator=s award, not that the award 

be vacated or modified. In accordance with this well recognized public policy, and in 

accordance with all parties= request for confirmation, the Court shall and hereby does confirm the 

arbitrator=s opinion and award precisely as written, including as clarified by the arbitrator=s July 

13, 2017, Order Regarding Trademark Rulings, as reflected in the judgment entered 

simultaneously with this order. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that defendants= motion for confirmation of the arbitrator=s 

trademark rulings [docket entry 70] is granted to the extent indicated in the judgment. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff=s motion for confirmation of the 

arbitrator=s trademark rulings [docket entry 71] is granted to the extent indicated in the judgment. 
6 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff=s motion for permanent injunctive 

relief [docket entry 72] is granted to the extent indicated in the judgment. 

Dated: April 3, 2018 s/Bernard A. Friedman 

Detroit, Michigan BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and 

any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class 

U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on April 3, 2018. 

 s/Johnetta M. Curry-Williams 

 Case Manager