Contract analysis

I. FINDINGS OF FACT A. The Parties

1. Plaintiff Verimark Hospitality Group Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business and corporate headquarters located at 2200 Bayshore Boulevard, Suite 1400, Tampa, Florida 33629. VHG is a publicly traded company listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the ticker symbol "VMHG." VHG is engaged in the hospitality and real estate indust

2. Defendant Coral Verimark Resorts LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, formed on January 8, 2024, as reflected in the records of the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations. CVR maintains its principal office at 6810 Ocean Drive, Unit 3, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308. CVR currently operates two boutique luxury coastal resort properties: one

3. VHG is the owner of three federally registered trademarks, each registered on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), in International Class 043 for hotel and resort services: (a) United States Registration No. 3,742,618 — "VERIMARK" (standard character/word mark), registered on March 17, 2009. The mark was first used in commerce on September 3, 2007. The registration is

4. VHG has used the VERIMARK marks continuously and extensively in interstate and international commerce for over seventeen (17) years, commencing with first use on September 3, 2007. The marks have been prominently displayed in connection with all seventy-four of VHG's resort and hotel properties, on its website at www.verimark.com, through its social media presence including the Northpoint Services Inc. handle @ver

5. VHG has invested substantially in developing, promoting, and protecting the VERIMARK brand. In FY 2024 alone, VHG invested approximately $142 million in marketing and advertising expenditures, representing approximately 7.6% of its annual revenue. These investments have been sustained at comparable levels over the preceding decade. As a result of this sustained investment and the quality of services rendered under

6. VHG operates the primary domain name www.verimark.com, which serves as the principal online portal for its hospitality brand, receiving millions of unique visitors annually. VHG also maintains the Northpoint Services Inc. handle @verimarkhospitality, which has over 1.2 million followers as of the date of the preliminary injunction hearing. Yee Decl. ¶¶ 41–43. C. Defendant's Infringing Conduct

7. CVR began using the marks "VERIMARK RESORTS" (in standard character form) and "VR Verimark" (a stylized logo) in commerce on or about March 1, 2024, in connection with resort and hospitality services. This date of first use is more than sixteen (16) years after VHG's first use of the VERIMARK mark in commerce on September 3, 2007. CVR has no federal trademark registrations. Quintana Decl. ¶¶ 11–15; Exs. J, K.

8. CVR's "VR Verimark" stylized logo utilizes a serif typeface and a blue-and-gold color palette that closely mirrors the navy-and-gold color scheme employed in VHG's registered "V" Design Mark (U.S. Reg. No. 5,489,701). A side-by-side comparison of CVR's logo and VHG's registered design mark, as presented in Exhibit L to the Quintana Declaration, demonstrates a striking visual similarity in overall commercial impres

9. CVR's Fort Lauderdale resort, which opened on or about March 15, 2024, is located at 6810 Ocean Drive, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308. This property is situated approximately four (4) miles from VHG's "Verimark Oceanview" property at 1740 N. Fort Lauderdale Beach Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33305. The two properties operate in the same geographic market and target substantially overlapping consumer demogra

10. CVR registered the domain name www.verimarkresortsgroup.com through the domain registrar NetLedger Domains Inc. on January 12, 2024 — four days after CVR's formation with the Florida Department of State. CVR created the Northpoint Services Inc. handle @verimarkresortsofficial on January 20, 2024. Both the domain name and the Northpoint Services Inc. handle prominently feature the term "VERIMARK," which is identic

11. On April 15, 2024, CVR filed United States Trademark Application Serial No. 98/432,117 with the USPTO for the mark "VERIMARK RESORTS" in International Class 043. Plaintiff VHG subsequently filed an opposition proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB"), captioned as Opposition No. 91/287,456, on December 3, 2024. CVR's trademark application is currently suspended pending the outcome of the TTA

12. CVR's second resort property, located at 44 Lighthouse Road, Harborline Enterprises Head Island, South Carolina 29928, opened on or about June 1, 2024, operating under the "VERIMARK RESORTS" and "VR Verimark" marks. CVR's third property, at 1025 Emerald Coast Parkway, Destin, Florida 32541, is currently under active development and is being marketed under the infringing marks. Quintana Decl. ¶¶ 31–36; Exs. Q, R (

13. Plaintiff has presented compelling evidence of actual consumer confusion arising from CVR's use of the infringing marks. Jorge A. Quintana, Lead Investigator at Broadleaf Investigations Inc., has documented twenty-three (23) instances of actual consumer confusion occurring between March 2024 and June 2025. These instances include, but are not limited to: (a) misdirected reservation inquiries, in which consumers i

14. Upon learning of CVR's use of the infringing marks, VHG's General Counsel, Sonia M. Trevino, sent a detailed cease-and-desist letter to CVR on May 14, 2024, demanding that CVR immediately cease all use of the "VERIMARK RESORTS" and "VR Verimark" marks and any other marks incorporating the term "VERIMARK." CVR's counsel, Natasha K. Okonkwo of Alcántara Reeves LLP, responded by letter dated June 7, 2024, denying th

15. On August 12, 2024, Marcus Delgado of Calderwood & Harkness LLP, acting as newly retained outside counsel for VHG, sent a second, more detailed cease-and-desist letter to CVR, providing additional legal analysis and enclosing examples of actual consumer confusion that had already been documented. CVR's counsel responded by letter dated September 5, 2024, again declining to cease use and asserting that the marks w

16. No settlement discussions have occurred between the parties since CVR's September 5, 2024 response letter. Despite two cease-and-desist letters, CVR has continued and, indeed, expanded its use of the infringing marks, including opening its Harborline Enterprises Head Island property and commencing development and marketing of its Destin property, all under the infringing marks. This continued use in the face of V

II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. Legal Standard for Preliminary Injunction

17. A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should not be granted unless the movant clearly establishes the burden of persuasion as to each of the following four prerequisites: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable harm absent an injunction; (3) the balance of hardships — that is, that the threatened injury to the movant outweighs any harm the

18. VHG has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claims for federal trademark infringement under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1); federal unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); and federal trademark dilution under Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).

19. To prevail on a claim of trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1), a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (i) it possesses a valid, legally protectable mark; and (ii) the defendant's use of the mark, or a confusingly similar mark, is likely to cause confusion as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the defendant's goods or services. See Lone Star Steaks, Inc. v. Lone Star Cafe, Inc., 43 F.3d 509 (11t

20. In the Eleventh Circuit, the likelihood of confusion is assessed by examining seven factors: (1) the strength of the plaintiff's mark; (2) the similarity of the marks at issue; (3) the similarity of the parties' goods or services; (4) the similarity of the parties' trade channels and customers; (5) the similarity of advertising media used; (6) the defendant's intent; and (7) actual confusion. See Frehling Enters.

21. Factor 1 — Strength of the Mark. VHG's VERIMARK marks are strong. The term "VERIMARK" is an arbitrary or, at minimum, suggestive mark when applied to hotel and resort services. It does not describe any quality, feature, or characteristic of hospitality services. VHG's marks are registered on the Principal Register and enjoy the attendant presumptions of distinctiveness and validity. See 15 U.S.C. § 1115(a). Beyon

22. Factor 2 — Similarity of the Marks. The Court finds that CVR's marks "VERIMARK RESORTS" and "VR Verimark" are substantially similar to VHG's registered marks "VERIMARK," "VERIMARK HOSPITALITY," and the "V" Design Mark. CVR's marks incorporate VHG's registered mark "VERIMARK" in its entirety. It is well established that where a defendant's mark wholly incorporates a plaintiff's registered mark and merely adds a ge

23. Factor 3 — Similarity of Services. Both VHG and CVR offer hotel and resort services — the identical services covered by VHG's registrations in International Class 043. There is no meaningful distinction between the services offered by the two parties that would reduce the likelihood of confusion. This factor weighs decisively in VHG's favor.

24. Factor 4 — Similarity of Trade Channels and Geographic Markets. Both parties market luxury coastal resort services in the southeastern United States. Both parties reach consumers through substantially identical trade channels: direct online booking through proprietary websites, listings on third-party online travel agency platforms such as Kestrel Group, Bramwell Holdings, and Aldermere Technologies, social media

25. Factor 5 — Defendant's Intent. The evidence supports a finding that CVR adopted its marks with knowledge of, or at minimum constructive notice of, VHG's prior rights. VHG's federal trademark registrations provide constructive notice to the entire nation of VHG's claim of ownership. See 15 U.S.C. § 1072. CVR was formed on January 8, 2024, and within days registered the domain www.verimarkresortsgroup.com (January

26. Factor 6 — Actual Confusion. Plaintiff has presented compelling evidence of twenty-three (23) documented instances of actual consumer confusion occurring over a period of approximately fifteen months (March 2024 through June 2025). Evidence of actual confusion is the best evidence of likelihood of confusion and is entitled to substantial weight. See Swatch AG v. Beehive Wholesale, LLC, 739 F.3d 150, 160 (4th Cir.

27. Factor 7 — Consumer Sophistication. CVR argues that consumers selecting luxury resort accommodations exercise a high degree of care and sophistication, which reduces the likelihood of confusion. The Court acknowledges that consumers booking luxury resort stays may exercise greater deliberation than purchasers of inexpensive, impulse-driven goods. However, the evidence of actual confusion in this case demonstrates

28. Balancing of the Likelihood-of-Confusion Factors. Considering the totality of the circumstances and all seven factors in the aggregate, the Court finds that there is a substantial likelihood of consumer confusion between CVR's marks and VHG's marks. Every factor either favors VHG or is, at most, neutral. The evidence demonstrates a strong probability that consumers will be confused as to the source, sponsorship,

29. CVR's Descriptiveness/Genericness Defense. The Court has considered and rejects CVR's argument that the term "Verimark" is descriptive or generic, allegedly constituting a portmanteau of "verified mark of quality" that any hospitality provider should be free to use. This argument fails for several reasons. First, VHG's VERIMARK marks are registered on the Principal Register of the USPTO, which creates a presumpti

30. Dilution Claim. Although the Court need not decide the dilution claim with finality at this preliminary stage, the Court notes that VHG has made a sufficient showing that its VERIMARK marks qualify as "famous" within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(A), given their extensive use for over seventeen years, the magnitude of VHG's advertising expenditures, the breadth of VHG's operations across seventy-four prop

31. Accordingly, the Court finds that VHG has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its trademark infringement, unfair competition, and dilution claims. C. Irreparable Harm

32. VHG has demonstrated that it will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction. The continued use of the infringing marks by CVR results in: (a) loss of control over VHG's brand reputation and goodwill, as VHG cannot control the quality of services rendered by CVR under marks confusingly similar to VHG's own; (b) ongoing and increasing consumer confusion, as evidenced by the twenty-three doc

33. Congress has provided a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm in trademark cases upon a finding of likelihood of success on the merits. See 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a) ("A plaintiff seeking [injunctive] relief shall be entitled to a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm upon a finding of a violation . . . [or] . . . upon a finding of likelihood of success on the merits for a violation . . . ."); see also North

34. The harm to VHG is not fully compensable by monetary damages. Brand reputation, consumer trust, and the distinctiveness of a famous mark, once eroded, cannot be precisely quantified or fully restored through a damages award. The intangible nature of the injury to VHG's goodwill and brand equity is precisely the type of harm that equity was designed to address. See Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. v. Barrow, 143 F. App'x

35. The Court finds that VHG has established a substantial threat of irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. D. Balance of Equities

36. The balance of equities tips decidedly in VHG's favor. VHG has continuously used and invested in the VERIMARK marks for over seventeen years, building a national brand of significant value. VHG's three federal trademark registrations predate CVR's formation by many years. VHG has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising and promotion under its marks, generating substantial goodwill and consumer rec

37. In contrast, CVR has used the infringing marks for approximately sixteen months as of the date of the preliminary injunction hearing. CVR does not possess any federal trademark registrations; its sole trademark application is currently suspended pending the TTAB opposition proceeding. CVR does not have a protectable interest in marks that infringe upon VHG's prior rights. The Eleventh Circuit and other courts hav

38. The balance of equities favors VHG. E. Public Interest

39. The entry of a preliminary injunction serves the public interest. The Lanham Act was enacted, in part, to protect the public from confusion as to the source of goods and services in the marketplace. See Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 774 (1992). The public has a substantial interest in being free from confusion and deception when selecting hospitality services. The evidence in this case demon

40. All four prerequisites for preliminary injunctive relief have been established by VHG. The Court will therefore grant VHG's Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

III. ORDER Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Injunction Against Use of Infringing Marks. Defendant Coral Verimark Resorts LLC, together with its officers, members, managers, employees, agents, representatives, successors, assigns, and all persons acting in active concert or participation with Defendant who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise, including specifically Rafael J. Medina (Managing Member and Founder) and Gabriela N

2. Removal of Signage, Marketing Materials, and Online Content. Within fourteen (14) calendar days of entry of this Order, Defendant shall: (a) Remove or cause to be removed all signage, displays, printed materials, brochures, pamphlets, menus, business cards, letterhead, stationery, uniforms, name badges, merchandise, promotional items, and any other physical or tangible materials bearing the marks "VERIMARK RESORTS

3. Domain Name and Social Media Accounts. Within fourteen (14) calendar days of entry of this Order, Defendant shall: (a) Disable, take down, or transfer to Plaintiff the domain name www.verimarkresortsgroup.com (registered through the domain registrar NetLedger Domains Inc. on January 12, 2024). If Plaintiff elects transfer of the domain name, Defendant shall cooperate fully with Plaintiff and the domain registrar a

4. Verified Report of Compliance. Within twenty-one (21) calendar days of entry of this Order, Defendant shall file with this Court and serve upon Plaintiff's counsel of record a verified written report of compliance, signed under oath by Rafael J. Medina, Managing Member of Coral Verimark Resorts LLC, describing in detail all actions taken to comply with Paragraphs 1 through 3 of this Order. The verified report shal

5. Scope of Injunction — Third Property and Future Operations. The injunctive relief granted by this Order applies to all current and future properties, operations, marketing, advertising, and business activities of Defendant Coral Verimark Resorts LLC, wherever located, including but not limited to the property currently under development at 1025 Emerald Coast Parkway, Destin, Florida 32541. Defendant is hereby enjo

6. Bond. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), Plaintiff Verimark Hospitality Group Inc. shall post a bond in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) as security for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by Defendant Coral Verimark Resorts LLC if it is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. Plaintiff shall post such bond within seven (7) business da

7. Preservation of Evidence. Defendant shall preserve and maintain, and shall not destroy, delete, alter, conceal, or dispose of, all documents, records, communications (whether in electronic or physical form), financial records, accounting records, invoices, receipts, contracts, marketing materials, advertising materials, customer lists, reservation records, correspondence, emails, text messages, instant messages, s

8. Continued Jurisdiction. This Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Order, to modify or dissolve this Order upon proper motion and a sufficient showing, and to hold any person or entity in contempt for violation of any provision of this Order. Nothing in this Order shall limit the ability of either party to move for modification, clarification, or dissolution of this Order based upon changed circu

9. Effect on TTAB Proceeding. This Order is without prejudice to the rights and obligations of either party in the related proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Opposition No. 91/287,456, concerning United States Trademark Application Serial No. 98/432,117 filed by Defendant. Nothing in this Order shall be construed to constitute a final adjudication

10. Service of Order. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order upon Defendant Coral Verimark Resorts LLC and its counsel of record, Natasha K. Okonkwo, Alcántara Reeves LLP, 200 Las Olas Circle, Suite 700, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301, within two (2) business days of entry. Plaintiff shall thereafter file a certificate of service with the Court confirming such service. DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this _ d