Contract analysis

I. Executive Summary This memorandum constitutes a comprehensive pre-filing strategy analysis prepared in advance of the anticipated July 22, 2025 filing of a Verified Complaint and concurrent Motion for Preliminary Injunction against Coral Verimark Resorts LLC ("CVR") on behalf of our client, Verimark Hospitality Group Inc. ("VHG"). The memorandum addresses the factual background, the strength of VHG's claims, an as

II. Factual Background A. VHG's Trademark Portfolio and Brand History VHG first adopted and used the "VERIMARK" mark in connection with hospitality services on September 3, 2007, when it opened its inaugural branded property in Tampa, Florida. Since that date, VHG has continuously and exclusively used the VERIMARK family of marks in interstate commerce in connection with hotel, resort, and hospitality services. VHG's

1. U.S. Registration No. 3,742,618 — "VERIMARK" (standard character / word mark), registered on March 17, 2009. This registration is based on a first use in commerce date of September 3, 2007. Having been registered for over sixteen years, and VHG having timely filed the required Declaration of Incontestability under Section 15 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1065), this registration is presumptively incontestable. In

2. U.S. Registration No. 4,105,233 — "VERIMARK HOSPITALITY" (standard character / word mark), registered on January 10, 2012. This registration is based on a first use in commerce date corresponding to VHG's adoption of the "VERIMARK HOSPITALITY" brand extension. This registration is live and in good standing, with all required maintenance filings current.

3. U.S. Registration No. 5,489,701 — VERIMARK "V" Design Mark (stylized mark featuring a distinctive serif "V" rendered in a navy-and-gold color scheme), registered on May 22, 2018. This registration covers the stylized design element that serves as VHG's primary visual brand identifier across its properties, marketing materials, and digital platforms. All three registrations are live, maintained, and in full force a

1. CVR Fort Lauderdale — Located at 6810 Ocean Drive, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. This property opened on March 15, 2024. Notably, this property is located approximately four miles from VHG's "Verimark Oceanview" resort property at 1740 N. Fort Lauderdale Beach Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida—one of VHG's flagship southeastern Florida locations.

2. CVR Harborline Enterprises Head — Located at 44 Lighthouse Road, Harborline Enterprises Head Island, South Carolina 29928. This property opened on June 1, 2024—approximately two weeks after CVR received VHG's first cease-and-desist letter. Additionally, CVR has a third property under active development at 1025 Emerald Coast Parkway, Destin, Florida 32541. Public permitting records and marketing materials obtained

III. Strength of VHG's Claims This section analyzes the five claims we recommend asserting in the Verified Complaint and evaluates VHG's likelihood of prevailing on each. A. Federal Trademark Infringement — 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1) To prevail on a claim of federal trademark infringement under Section 32 of the Lanham Act, VHG must establish that (1) it owns valid, federally registered trademarks, and (2) CVR's use of mark

1. Strength of VHG's Marks. The strength of a trademark is assessed along two dimensions: conceptual strength (the mark's inherent distinctiveness as a matter of trademark law) and commercial strength (the mark's recognition and prominence in the marketplace). Conceptual Strength. "VERIMARK" is a coined, portmanteau term that does not appear in any standard English dictionary. As applied to hospitality services, the

2. Similarity of the Marks. The similarity analysis considers the marks as a whole, taking into account their appearance (sight), pronunciation (sound), and connotation (meaning). See John H. Harland Co. v. Clarke Checks, Inc., 711 F.2d 966, 975 (11th Cir. 1983). CVR's primary mark, "VERIMARK RESORTS," incorporates VHG's registered "VERIMARK" mark in its entirety. The term "VERIMARK" is the dominant element of CVR's

3. Similarity of Services. Both VHG and CVR operate in International Class 043—hotel and resort services. The services are not merely related; they are identical. Both parties provide luxury resort accommodations to consumers in the southeastern United States. The identity of the services is a significant factor supporting likelihood of confusion, as consumers encountering identical services offered under confusingly

4. Similarity of Trade Channels and Geographic Markets. Both VHG and CVR target the same consumer demographic: leisure and luxury travelers seeking upscale resort accommodations. Both parties market their services through overlapping channels, including proprietary websites, Northpoint Services Inc. and other social media platforms, and online travel agency ("OTA") platforms such as Aldermere Technologies, Bramwell H

5. Intent of the Defendant. Evidence of the defendant's intent in adopting its mark is relevant to the likelihood-of-confusion analysis because a defendant who intentionally adopts a mark similar to a well-known mark is presumed to have intended to create confusion. See Frehling Enters., 192 F.3d at 1340. Several facts support an inference that CVR intentionally adopted marks confusingly similar to VHG's VERIMARK mar

6. Evidence of Actual Confusion. As detailed in Section II.D above, Broadleaf Investigations has documented 23 discrete instances of actual consumer confusion spanning the period from March 2024 to June 2025. This evidence encompasses multiple categories of confusion, including misdirected reservation inquiries, social media misattributions, and cross-posted online reviews. Actual confusion evidence is the "best evid

7. Consumer Sophistication. CVR may argue that the relevant consumers—luxury resort travelers—exercise a high degree of care in making purchasing decisions, thereby reducing the likelihood of confusion. While it is true that consumers of high-end hospitality services generally exercise greater care than consumers of inexpensive, impulse-driven products, this consideration does not preclude a finding of likelihood of

Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act provides a cause of action for unfair competition and false designation of origin, protecting both registered and unregistered marks against uses that are likely to cause confusion as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of goods or services. The same likelihood-of-confusion analysis applicable to the Section 32 claim applies here, and the analysis set forth in Section III.A abov

IV. Assessment of CVR's Likely Defenses Based on the positions articulated in CVR's counsel's June 7, 2024 and September 5, 2024 response letters, as well as our analysis of the factual record and applicable law, we anticipate that CVR will raise the following defenses. Each is addressed below with our rebuttal strategy and risk assessment. A. Descriptiveness / Genericness Defense CVR asserted in its June 7, 2024 res

V. Preliminary Injunction Strategy A. Legal Standard To obtain a preliminary injunction in the Eleventh Circuit, the movant must establish four elements: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm absent injunctive relief; (3) that the balance of equities favors the movant; and (4) that the preliminary injunction would serve the public interest. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, I

1. Declaration of Leonard Yee (VHG Vice President of Brand Protection). Mr. Yee's declaration will authenticate VHG's trademark registrations, describe VHG's brand history and the development of the VERIMARK brand since 2007, document VHG's $142 million annual marketing spend and the scope of its 74-property portfolio, and detail the pre-suit cease-and-desist history. The declaration will attach as exhibits copies of

2. Declaration of Jorge A. Quintana (Broadleaf Investigations Inc.). Mr. Quintana's declaration will authenticate the 23 documented instances of actual consumer confusion, describe the methodology employed in the marketplace evidence-gathering effort, and explain the significance of the confusion evidence. The declaration will attach documentary exhibits including screenshots, email records, and other evidence of eac

3. Expert Report / Survey from Dr. Irene Calder (Pinnacle Brand Analytics LLC). Dr. Calder has been retained under a flat-fee arrangement of $45,000 for the design and administration of a Teflon-format likelihood-of-confusion survey, plus $650 per hour for deposition and trial testimony. The survey will measure consumer perception of "VERIMARK" as a brand name versus a descriptive term, providing empirical evidence t

4. Potential Declaration of Donald R. Hargrove (VHG CEO). We should consider whether to submit a declaration from Mr. Hargrove addressing the reputational harm to VHG as a publicly traded company. A CEO-level declaration can be impactful in conveying to the Court the seriousness of the brand harm and the