client-status-update-letter-july-2025.docx

1021-00004 · Verimark Hospitality Group · Correspondence

client-status-update-letter-july-2025.docx DOCUMENT Litigation

1 / 12 → ✕

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP Attorneys at Law 400 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3200 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 554-8200 Facsimile: (305) 554-8201 www.calderwoodharkness.com

July 23, 2025

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND HAND DELIVERY

Sonia M. Trevino, Esq. General Counsel Verimark Hospitality Group Inc. 2200 Bayshore Boulevard, Suite 1400 Tampa, FL 33629

Re: Verimark Hospitality Group Inc. v. Coral Verimark Resorts LLC — Post-Filing Status Update Case No. 1:25-cv-22847-AMC (S.D. Fla.) Matter No. 1021-00004

Dear Sonia:

1. Purpose and Overview

We write to provide you and the Verimark Hospitality Group Inc. ("VHG") leadership team with a comprehensive status update following the initiation of federal litigation against Coral Verimark Resorts LLC ("CVR") on July 22, 2025. This letter summarizes all actions taken in connection with the filing of suit, describes the current procedural posture of the case, and identifies the immediate next steps and action items that will require VHG's attention and cooperation in the coming weeks.

As you are aware, this matter arises from CVR's unauthorized adoption and use of the "VERIMARK RESORTS" name and "VR Verimark" stylized logo in connection with its resort properties — conduct that directly infringes upon VHG's longstanding and well-established family of VERIMARK trademarks. After extensive pre-litigation efforts, including cease-and-desist correspondence that failed to produce an acceptable resolution, we determined in consultation with your office that the filing of a federal complaint and an accompanying motion for preliminary injunctive relief was both necessary and warranted.

We are pleased to report that the Calderwood & Harkness engagement team remains fully staffed and committed to the vigorous prosecution of this matter. The team consists of Marcus Delgado, Responsible Partner; Catherine Bloom, Billing Partner; Peter Vassiliev, Lead Associate; and Wendy Schultz, Working Associate. Each member of the team is actively engaged in case development, and we have allocated sufficient resources to ensure that all deadlines and strategic objectives are met in a timely and efficient manner. We remain confident in the strength of VHG's position and are prepared to pursue this matter through all stages of litigation as may be required.

The sections that follow address each aspect of the case in detail.

2. Filings Completed on July 22, 2025

2.1 Verified Complaint

On July 22, 2025, Calderwood & Harkness LLP filed a Verified Complaint on behalf of VHG in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division. The case has been assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-22847-AMC and has been referred to the calendar of the Honorable Adrienne M. Castellano, United States District Judge. A conformed copy of the Verified Complaint is enclosed with this letter for your records.

The Verified Complaint asserts the following five counts against CVR:

1. Count I — Federal Trademark Infringement under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1), based on CVR's unauthorized use of marks confusingly similar to VHG's federally registered VERIMARK trademarks in connection with identical and closely related hospitality services.

2. Count II — Federal Unfair Competition / False Designation of Origin under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), based on CVR's use of the "VERIMARK RESORTS" name and "VR Verimark" stylized logo in a manner likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to the origin, sponsorship, or affiliation of CVR's resort properties and services.

3. Count III — Federal Trademark Dilution under Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), based on CVR's dilution by blurring of VHG's famous VERIMARK marks through the use of substantially similar marks in the same hospitality industry, thereby weakening the distinctiveness of VHG's marks.

4. Count IV — Florida Common Law Trademark Infringement, based on VHG's longstanding common law rights in the VERIMARK marks predating CVR's adoption of its infringing marks, and CVR's use of confusingly similar marks in commerce within the State of Florida.

5. Count V — Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.204, based on CVR's deceptive and unfair trade practices in adopting and using marks confusingly similar to VHG's established marks, thereby misleading consumers regarding the source and affiliation of CVR's services.

The Complaint sets forth in detail VHG's extensive trademark portfolio and rights, including the following three federal trademark registrations owned by VHG, each of which is valid, subsisting, and incontestable:

• U.S. Registration No. 3,742,618 for the mark VERIMARK (standard characters), registered on March 17, 2009, with a first use in commerce date of September 3, 2007, covering services in International Class 043 (hotel and resort services, temporary accommodations, and restaurant services);

• U.S. Registration No. 4,105,233 for the mark VERIMARK HOSPITALITY (standard characters), registered on January 10, 2012, covering services in International Classes 035 and 043 (hotel management, resort management, and hospitality services); and

• U.S. Registration No. 5,489,701 for the VERIMARK "V" Design Mark (stylized), registered on May 22, 2018, covering services in International Classes 035, 041, and 043 (hotel and resort services, entertainment services, and business management of hotels and resorts).

The Complaint identifies CVR's infringing conduct, which commenced on or about March 1, 2024, when CVR began using the name "VERIMARK RESORTS" and a stylized "VR Verimark" logo in connection with the marketing, promotion, and operation of boutique resort properties. The Complaint describes CVR's two operational resort properties — the first located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, which opened on or about March 15, 2024, and the second located in Harborline Enterprises Head Island, South Carolina, which opened on or about June 1, 2024. The Complaint further identifies a third CVR property currently under development in Destin, Florida, which CVR has publicly announced plans to open in the first quarter of 2026.

The Complaint details twenty-three (23) documented instances of actual consumer confusion compiled by Broadleaf Investigations Inc. between March 2024 and June 2025. These instances include, among other things, misdirected reservation inquiries made to VHG properties intended for CVR locations, social media misattributions, and customer reviews posted on VHG property pages that reference experiences at CVR-operated facilities. This evidence of actual confusion is significant because it directly supports VHG's claims of likelihood of confusion — the central element in federal and state trademark infringement actions.

The Verified Complaint was verified by Leonard Yee, Vice President of Brand Protection for VHG, who attested under penalty of perjury to the truth of the factual allegations set forth therein based on his personal knowledge and review of VHG's business records.

The Complaint seeks the following relief from the Court:

• Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining CVR from any further use of the "VERIMARK RESORTS" name, the "VR Verimark" stylized logo, and any other marks confusingly similar to VHG's registered VERIMARK marks;

• An award of actual damages sustained by VHG or, in the alternative, an accounting and disgorgement of CVR's profits attributable to its infringing use of the VERIMARK marks. In this regard, the Complaint alleges that CVR generated combined gross revenue of approximately $4.3 million for calendar year 2024, with projected gross revenue of approximately $6.8 million for calendar year 2025, totaling $11.1 million over the relevant period;

• Enhanced or treble damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), given the willful and deliberate nature of CVR's infringement;

• An award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as an exceptional case under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a);

• An order directing the cancellation of CVR's pending United States Trademark Application Serial No. 98/432,117 for "VERIMARK RESORTS" in International Class 043; and

• Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

2.2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Concurrently with the filing of the Verified Complaint on July 22, 2025, we filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction seeking an order from the Court enjoining CVR from continuing to use the "VERIMARK RESORTS" name, the "VR Verimark" stylized logo, or any confusingly similar marks pending the final resolution of this action.

The Motion was accompanied by a detailed Memorandum of Law in Support of VHG's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which analyzes the well-established four-factor preliminary injunction standard applicable in the Eleventh Circuit. Specifically, the Memorandum addresses the following factors:

Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Merits. The Memorandum applies the Eleventh Circuit's seven-factor likelihood-of-confusion test set forth in Frehling Enterprises, Inc. v. International Select Group, Inc., 192 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 1999), and its progeny. The analysis demonstrates that each of the seven factors weighs heavily in VHG's favor: (i) the strength and distinctiveness of VHG's VERIMARK marks, which are arbitrary in the context of hospitality services and enjoy incontestable status; (ii) the high degree of similarity between VHG's marks and CVR's "VERIMARK RESORTS" name and "VR Verimark" logo, both of which incorporate the dominant VERIMARK element; (iii) the identity and close similarity of the parties' services, both of which consist of hospitality and resort services; (iv) the overlap in the parties' trade channels and customer base; (v) the similarity in the parties' advertising methods and media; (vi) CVR's intent in adopting the mark, as evidenced by the pre-litigation correspondence and the circumstances of adoption; and (vii) the existence of twenty-three documented instances of actual consumer confusion.

Irreparable Harm. The Memorandum establishes that VHG will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, based on the ongoing loss of goodwill and brand dilution resulting from CVR's infringing use. The Memorandum invokes the statutory presumption of irreparable harm available under 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a) upon a finding of likelihood of success in a trademark infringement action, and further demonstrates irreparable harm through the documented evidence of actual consumer confusion, damage to VHG's brand reputation, and the ongoing nature of CVR's infringing conduct.

Balance of Equities. The Memorandum demonstrates that the balance of equities tips decidedly in VHG's favor. VHG has over seventeen (17) years of continuous, substantial, and exclusive use of the VERIMARK marks in interstate commerce, dating back to September 3, 2007. By contrast, CVR has been in operation for approximately sixteen (16) months and adopted its infringing marks with full knowledge of VHG's prior rights, as evidenced by CVR's failure to conduct adequate trademark clearance and its receipt of VHG's cease-and-desist correspondence. Any hardship to CVR resulting from a preliminary injunction is self-inflicted and attributable to CVR's own decision to adopt and continue using an infringing mark despite notice of VHG's prior rights.

Public Interest. The Memorandum establishes that the public interest is served by granting preliminary injunctive relief. The Lanham Act was enacted, in significant part, to protect the consuming public from confusion as to the source or origin of goods and services. The twenty-three documented instances of actual consumer confusion demonstrate that the public interest in preventing ongoing consumer deception strongly favors the issuance of a preliminary injunction.

The Motion was supported by the following evidentiary submissions:

• Declaration of Leonard Yee, Vice President of Brand Protection for VHG. Mr. Yee's declaration authenticates VHG's trademark registrations and certificates of registration, provides a comprehensive history of the VERIMARK brand dating back to its founding, details VHG's annual marketing expenditure of approximately $142 million in fiscal year 2024, identifies the geographic proximity of CVR's Fort Lauderdale resort property (located approximately four (4) miles from VHG's flagship Verimark Oceanview property in Fort Lauderdale), and recounts the history of cease-and-desist correspondence between the parties.

• Declaration of Jorge A. Quintana, Principal Investigator at Broadleaf Investigations Inc. Mr. Quintana's declaration documents the twenty-three (23) instances of actual consumer confusion identified and compiled by Broadleaf between March 2024 and June 2025. The confusion evidence includes misdirected reservation inquiries from consumers who intended to book accommodations at CVR properties but contacted VHG properties instead (and vice versa), social media posts and tags misattributing CVR content to VHG, and customer reviews posted on VHG property pages on major travel platforms (including Kestrel Group and Pinnacle Partners LLC) that clearly describe experiences at CVR-operated facilities.

• Proposed Preliminary Injunction Order. We also filed a proposed order for the Court's consideration setting forth the specific terms of the requested preliminary injunction, including the scope of the enjoined conduct, the requirement that CVR remove all infringing signage, marketing materials, and digital content within fourteen (14) days of entry, and the posting of a nominal injunction bond.

Conformed copies of the Memorandum in Support, the Declaration of Leonard Yee, the Declaration of Jorge A. Quintana, and the Proposed Preliminary Injunction Order are enclosed with this letter.

2.3 Notice of Related TTAB Proceeding

In addition to the Complaint and the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, we filed a Notice of Related Proceeding informing the Court of the pending proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB"): Opposition No. 91/287,456, Verimark Hospitality Group Inc. v. Coral Verimark Resorts LLC. The Notice advises the Court that the TTAB proceeding was suspended by stipulation of the parties, entered on February 18, 2025, pending the outcome of this district court action. The Notice requests that the Court take note of the related proceeding for case management and coordination purposes, as the issues presented in the TTAB opposition substantially overlap with the claims asserted in this action. A conformed copy of the Notice is enclosed.

3. Service of Process

We confirm that service of the Summons and Verified Complaint was effected upon Coral Verimark Resorts LLC on July 22, 2025. Service was accomplished both at CVR's principal office located at 6810 Ocean Drive, Unit 3, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308, and upon CVR's designated registered agent, Suncoast Filing Services LLC, located at 100 S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 210, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301. Affidavits of service will be filed with the Court in due course.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1)(A)(i), CVR is required to serve an answer or other responsive pleading within twenty-one (21) days of service. Accordingly, CVR's answer or responsive pleading is due by August 12, 2025.

As a matter of professional courtesy and in accordance with applicable rules of practice, copies of all filed papers — including the Verified Complaint, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and supporting papers, and the Notice of Related TTAB Proceeding — were also served upon CVR's known outside counsel: Natasha K. Okonkwo, Esq. and Derek S. Fuentes, Esq. of Alcántara Reeves LLP, located at 200 Las Olas Circle, Suite 700, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301. We understand from prior correspondence that Ms. Okonkwo and Mr. Fuentes represent CVR in connection with the TTAB opposition and anticipate that they will also enter appearances on behalf of CVR in this district court action, although we have not yet received confirmation of that representation.

4. Preliminary Injunction Hearing

The Court has scheduled the hearing on VHG's Motion for Preliminary Injunction for September 10, 2025. We are preparing in earnest for the hearing and anticipate the following procedural developments in the interim period.

First, we anticipate that CVR will file an opposition brief and supporting evidence in response to VHG's Motion. The Court's local rules and any order setting the briefing schedule will govern the deadlines for CVR's opposition and VHG's reply. Once we receive CVR's opposition papers, we will promptly review them, share them with your office, and prepare a comprehensive reply memorandum addressing each of CVR's arguments.

Second, we are preparing for the possibility that the Court will require or permit live testimony at the hearing. In trademark cases involving motions for preliminary injunctive relief, it is not uncommon for the court to request testimony from key witnesses, particularly where the movant relies on evidence of actual confusion and the credibility and weight of that evidence are contested. We anticipate that the Court may wish to hear testimony from Leonard Yee, VHG's Vice President of Brand Protection, who can speak to VHG's brand history, marketing expenditures, the impact of CVR's conduct, and the cease-and-desist correspondence. We also expect that testimony from Jorge A. Quintana of Broadleaf Investigations Inc. may be required to authenticate and elaborate upon the consumer confusion evidence. We will coordinate with Mr. Yee and Mr. Quintana in the coming weeks to prepare them for potential testimony, including conducting preparatory sessions as the hearing date approaches.

Third, we may also present expert testimony from Dr. Irene Calder of Pinnacle Brand Analytics LLC, contingent upon the completion of her consumer confusion survey in advance of the September 10 hearing date. As discussed in further detail in Section 5 below, Dr. Calder's engagement is currently being finalized. If the survey results are available in time, her testimony could significantly strengthen VHG's showing on the likelihood-of-confusion element. We will keep you advised of the timeline and feasibility of presenting this evidence at the preliminary injunction stage.

5. Expert Engagement

5.1 Consumer Confusion Survey — Pinnacle Brand Analytics LLC

We are in the process of formally engaging Dr. Irene Calder, Ph.D. (Consumer Psychology), of Pinnacle Brand Analytics LLC, located at 1500 Peachtree Street N.W., Suite 800, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, to design and conduct a consumer confusion survey for use as evidence in this litigation.

Dr. Calder is a nationally recognized expert in consumer perception and trademark confusion surveys, with over twenty years of experience in the field. She has been qualified as an expert witness in federal courts across the country and has conducted surveys in numerous high-profile trademark disputes in the hospitality, consumer products, and technology sectors.

Dr. Calder will design and administer a Teflon-format likelihood-of-confusion survey specifically tailored to assess consumer perception regarding CVR's use of "VERIMARK RESORTS" and the "VR Verimark" stylized logo in relation to VHG's registered VERIMARK marks. The Teflon format is widely accepted in the Eleventh Circuit and is appropriate for measuring whether consumers associate CVR's marks with VHG or perceive a sponsorship or affiliation relationship between the two entities.

The fee structure for Dr. Calder's engagement is as follows: a flat fee of $45,000 for the design, administration, analysis, and reporting of the survey, plus $650 per hour for any deposition testimony and trial testimony that may be required. These fees are consistent with market rates for survey experts of Dr. Calder's caliber and experience.

Our target is to complete the survey in advance of the September 10, 2025 preliminary injunction hearing, if feasible given the timeline constraints. However, should the survey not be completed by that date, the results will be available for use in connection with any subsequent summary judgment proceedings or at trial. We will provide you with regular updates on the status of this engagement.

5.2 Damages Analysis — Drummond Appraisal Group Inc.

We are also engaging Graham T. Whitford, CPA, CFF (Certified in Financial Forensics), of Drummond Appraisal Group Inc., located at 50 Milk Street, Suite 1600, Boston, Massachusetts 02109, to prepare a comprehensive damages analysis in support of VHG's claims for monetary relief.

Mr. Whitford is a highly experienced forensic accountant and damages expert who has been retained in over sixty trademark infringement and unfair competition matters. He will prepare a detailed analysis covering the following categories of damages:

• VHG's Lost Profits. Based on VHG's internal reservation-tracking data and competitive impact analysis, VHG estimates that it sustained approximately $2.1 million in diverted bookings during calendar year 2024 as a direct result of CVR's infringing use of the VERIMARK name. Mr. Whitford will independently verify and refine this estimate through a rigorous but-for analysis.

• CVR's Profits. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), VHG is entitled to recover CVR's profits attributable to the infringement. CVR's combined gross revenue for calendar years 2024 and 2025 is estimated at $11.1 million ($4.3 million in CY 2024 and a projected $6.8 million in CY 2025). Based on publicly available information and industry benchmarks, CVR's estimated profit margin is approximately 18%, yielding estimated profits of approximately $2.0 million over the relevant period.

• Reasonable Royalty Alternative. In the event the Court determines that a reasonable royalty is the appropriate measure of damages, Mr. Whitford will calculate a reasonable royalty based on a hypothetical negotiation framework. A preliminary estimate, applying a royalty rate of 5% to CVR's gross revenue of $11.1 million, yields a reasonable royalty of approximately $555,000.

• Treble Damages Analysis. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), the Court has discretion to award up to three times the amount of actual damages or profits in cases involving willful infringement. Mr. Whitford will prepare a treble damages analysis, with a preliminary ceiling estimate of $6.0 million based on trebling CVR's estimated profits of $2.0 million.

Mr. Whitford's standard billing rate is $575 per hour. His engagement letter is being finalized and will be circulated to your office for review and your records in the coming days.

6. Coordination with TTAB Opposition

As noted above, the TTAB Opposition proceeding, Opposition No. 91/287,456, remains suspended pursuant to the stipulated order entered by the Board on February 18, 2025. The opposition concerns CVR's United States Trademark Application Serial No. 98/432,117 for the mark "VERIMARK RESORTS" in International Class 043 (hotel and resort services), which was filed by CVR on April 15, 2024. VHG timely filed its Notice of Opposition on the grounds of priority, likelihood of confusion, and dilution.

Our recommended strategy is to maintain the suspension of the TTAB proceeding and allow the district court action to proceed. This approach is tactically advantageous for several reasons. First, the district court action provides a broader forum in which VHG can seek not only cancellation of CVR's pending application but also injunctive relief and monetary damages — remedies unavailable in the TTAB. Second, a favorable outcome in the district court — whether in the form of a preliminary injunction, a summary judgment ruling, or a trial verdict — will substantially support the cancellation of CVR's pending application and may effectively resolve the TTAB opposition by collateral estoppel or by rendering CVR's application moot. Third, proceeding in district court first avoids the risk of inconsistent rulings and conserves the parties' and the Board's resources.

We will continue to monitor the TTAB docket and will file any necessary status reports or motions to maintain the suspension. Should CVR seek to lift the suspension and reactivate the TTAB proceeding, we will promptly advise you and take appropriate responsive action.

7. Discovery Preparation

We anticipate that formal discovery will commence after CVR files its answer or responsive pleading (due August 12, 2025) and after the parties conduct a discovery planning conference pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The Rule 26(f) conference must typically be held at least twenty-one (21) days before the date of the Court's scheduling conference or the deadline for a scheduling order. We expect the Court to issue an order setting deadlines for the Rule 26(f) conference and the submission of a Joint Scheduling Report in the near future.

In the interim, we are proactively preparing VHG's initial discovery requests so that they may be served promptly upon the commencement of the discovery period. We are drafting the following categories of discovery:

Document Requests. We are preparing a comprehensive set of requests for production of documents directed to CVR, targeting the following categories of materials:

• CVR's business formation records, including articles of organization, operating agreements, membership records, and the identities of CVR's principals, managers, and investors (believed to include Rafael J. Medina and Gabriela N. Serrano);

• Any trademark clearance searches, legal opinions, or due diligence analyses conducted by or on behalf of CVR prior to or in connection with the adoption of the "VERIMARK RESORTS" name or the "VR Verimark" logo;

• All marketing, advertising, and promotional materials used by CVR in connection with its resort properties, including print materials, digital advertisements, website content, social media content, and email marketing campaigns;

• CVR's complete financial records, including revenue, cost, and profit data for each resort property on a monthly and annual basis;

• All customer communications, including reservation confirmations, guest correspondence, complaint records, and customer satisfaction surveys;

• All internal communications among CVR's principals, managers, employees, and agents regarding the selection, adoption, and continued use of the "VERIMARK" name, including any communications referencing VHG or VHG's trademarks.

Interrogatories. We are preparing interrogatories focused on the following topics:

• CVR's knowledge of VHG and VHG's VERIMARK marks prior to CVR's adoption of the "VERIMARK RESORTS" name, including whether any of CVR's principals, managers, or employees had prior experience in the hospitality industry or awareness of VHG's brand;

• Detailed revenue data by property, by quarter, and by service line;

• All incidents of customer confusion known to CVR, including misdirected reservations, customer complaints, and any other instances in which customers expressed confusion between CVR and VHG;

• The basis for CVR's selection of the "VERIMARK" name and the creative development of the "VR Verimark" logo.

Requests for Admission. We are preparing requests for admission directed to establishing key facts, including VHG's ownership of its federal trademark registrations, VHG's priority of use, the similarity of the parties' respective marks, and the overlap in the parties' services and geographic markets.

In addition, we are preparing third-party subpoenas to NetLedger Domains Inc., the registrar for the domain name www.verimarkresortsgroup.com, seeking the production of complete domain registration records, including the date of registration, the identity of the registrant, and any WHOIS privacy or proxy service records. This information will be relevant to establishing the timeline of CVR's adoption of the VERIMARK name and its intent in doing so.

8. Action Items for VHG

The following items require VHG's attention and prompt action in the coming weeks.

8.1 Designation of Rule 30(b)(6) Representative

We request that VHG identify and designate a corporate representative or representatives pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) who can testify on behalf of the company regarding the following topics: VHG's trademark portfolio and registration history; VHG's brand development and marketing history; VHG's marketing practices and expenditures; VHG's awareness of CVR's infringing conduct; the impact of CVR's conduct on VHG's business, including booking diversions, customer confusion, and damage to goodwill; and VHG's pre-litigation efforts to address CVR's infringement, including the cease-and-desist correspondence.

We suggest Leonard Yee, Vice President of Brand Protection, as the primary Rule 30(b)(6) designee given his intimate familiarity with the facts underlying this dispute and his role as the verifying officer on the Complaint. We may also recommend designating additional representatives for topics relating to financial impact, revenue management, and marketing, and we will work with you to identify appropriate individuals as those needs become clearer.

8.2 Document Preservation

We take this opportunity to remind VHG of its ongoing obligation to preserve all documents and electronically stored information ("ESI") that are potentially relevant to this litigation. This obligation arose no later than May 14, 2024, when VHG transmitted its first cease-and-desist letter to CVR and the prospect of litigation became reasonably foreseeable. However, given the formal commencement of litigation, we recommend that VHG confirm that a comprehensive litigation hold is in place and has been communicated to all relevant custodians.

The preservation obligation extends to, but is not limited to, the following categories of documents and ESI:

• All communications — including emails, text messages, instant messages, memoranda, and notes — referencing CVR, Coral Verimark, Coral Verimark Resorts, Rafael J. Medina, Gabriela N. Serrano, or any CVR property;

• All internal analyses, reports, memoranda, or presentations concerning booking diversions, competitive impact, market overlap, or customer confusion attributable to CVR's operations;

• All marketing and brand protection files, including brand guidelines, trademark watch reports, enforcement correspondence, and trademark prosecution files;

• All consumer complaints, inquiries, or feedback reflecting confusion between VHG and CVR, including call center logs, emails from guests, and records maintained by property-level guest services teams;

• All social media records and social media monitoring reports, including brand mention tracking, sentiment analysis reports, and records of posts or reviews flagged as involving potential confusion with CVR;

• All financial records, including revenue reports, reservation-tracking data, occupancy records, and competitive performance benchmarks, for VHG properties located in markets where CVR operates or intends to operate (Fort Lauderdale, Harborline Enterprises Head Island, and Destin).

We understand that a litigation hold may have been issued during the cease-and-desist phase of this matter. If so, we request that VHG confirm that the hold has been updated and re-circulated to all relevant custodians to reflect the filing of the federal action and the expanded scope of the preservation obligation. If a formal litigation hold has not yet been issued, we strongly recommend that one be issued and distributed immediately. We are happy to assist in preparing the litigation hold notice if that would be helpful.

Please confirm the status of VHG's litigation hold at your earliest convenience.

8.3 Internal Contacts for discovery Coordination

To facilitate the efficient collection and review of documents in response to CVR's anticipated discovery requests and in support of VHG's affirmative case, we request that VHG identify the key custodians whose files and records should be searched and collected. Based on our understanding of the matter, the following individuals should be among the initial custodians:

• Donald R. Hargrove, Chief Executive Officer;

• Sonia M. Trevino, General Counsel;

• Leonard Yee, Vice President of Brand Protection;

• Relevant marketing department personnel, including the individuals responsible for brand management, digital marketing, and social media oversight; and

• Relevant revenue management personnel, including those responsible for reservation tracking, competitive market analysis, and financial reporting for the affected properties.

We also ask that VHG begin assembling the reservation-tracking data and financial records that support the preliminary estimate of $2.1 million in lost profits attributable to diverted bookings during calendar year 2024. Mr. Whitford of Drummond Appraisal Group will need access to this data as he develops his damages analysis, and having the data organized and available in advance will expedite his work and reduce costs. Peter Vassiliev will be reaching out to coordinate the collection and transfer of these materials.

9. Anticipated Defense Positions

Based on our review of CVR's responses to VHG's pre-litigation cease-and-desist correspondence and our assessment of the likely defense strategy, we anticipate that CVR will assert several defenses, each of which we believe can be effectively rebutted. The principal anticipated defense positions are as follows:

Descriptiveness or Genericness. In its response to VHG's cease-and-desist letters, CVR took the position that "Verimark" is a descriptive or generic term meaning "verified mark of quality" in the hospitality industry, and that VHG cannot claim exclusive rights in a common descriptive term. We are well-positioned to counter this argument. VHG's three federal trademark registrations carry a presumption of validity under 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b), and two of the three registrations have achieved incontestable status under 15 U.S.C. § 1065, which conclusively establishes that the marks are not generic and are at minimum descriptive with acquired distinctiveness. Moreover, "Verimark" is a coined, arbitrary term that does not describe any quality, characteristic, or feature of hospitality services. CVR's post-hoc construction of a descriptive meaning is unpersuasive and will not withstand scrutiny.

Niche Market Distinction. CVR has previously argued that its use of "VERIMARK RESORTS" is in connection with a distinct "boutique luxury coastal resort" niche that is distinguishable from VHG's broader hospitality brand, and that the relevant consumer bases do not overlap. This argument fails for multiple reasons: VHG operates properties across the full spectrum of the hospitality market, including luxury and boutique resort properties; the parties' services are in the same International Class (IC 043); CVR operates in the same geographic markets as VHG (Fort Lauderdale, in particular); and the twenty-three instances of actual consumer confusion directly refute any claim that the respective consumer bases are distinct.

Laches or Acquiescence. CVR may assert a laches or acquiescence defense based on the approximately fourteen-month gap between VHG's first cease-and-desist letter (May 14, 2024) and the filing of suit (July 22, 2025). However, the laches defense faces significant obstacles. First, the Eleventh Circuit applies a strong presumption against laches where the defendant's infringing use commenced within the statute of limitations period analogous to the trademark claims, which in Florida is four years for unfair competition claims. VHG filed suit well within that period. Second, VHG did not sit on its rights — it sent multiple cease-and-desist communications, initiated the TTAB opposition, and engaged in settlement discussions before determining that litigation was necessary. Third, even if laches were established, it would not bar VHG's claims for injunctive relief, as laches typically only limits the recovery of retrospective monetary damages. Fourth, where the infringement is willful — as we intend to prove — laches is generally unavailable as a defense.

We will continue to refine our analysis of CVR's anticipated defenses as the case develops and as we receive CVR's responsive pleading and any opposition to the preliminary injunction motion.

10. Budget and Fee Update

As set forth in the engagement letter dated June 16, 2025, the estimated legal fees for this matter through the preliminary injunction phase are in the range of $275,000 to $375,000. We are pleased to report that costs incurred to date are within the lower range of this estimate, reflecting the team's efficiency in preparing the initial filings and the benefit of the substantial investigative work completed during the pre-litigation phase.

Expert fees will be billed separately as expenses pursuant to the terms of the engagement letter. The current expert fee commitments are as follows:

• Pinnacle Brand Analytics LLC (Dr. Irene Calder): $45,000 flat fee for the consumer confusion survey, plus $650 per hour for deposition and trial testimony;

• Drummond Appraisal Group Inc. (Graham T. Whitford): $575 per hour for all services;

• Broadleaf Investigations Inc. (Jorge A. Quintana): $18,500 flat fee for the initial investigation and documentation of consumer confusion instances (engagement completed; final report delivered).

Monthly invoices will be provided in accordance with VHG's billing guidelines, with the first invoice covering all activity for the month of July 2025. We will continue to manage the budget carefully and will promptly notify you if we anticipate any material deviation from the estimated fee range.

11. Upcoming Key Dates Summary

For ease of reference, the following is a summary of the key upcoming dates and deadlines in this matter:

We will promptly advise you of any additional dates set by the Court or arising from the progression of the case.

Closing

We are confident that VHG is in a strong position in this litigation. VHG's trademark portfolio is robust and well-established, anchored by three federal registrations — two of which are incontestable — and over seventeen years of continuous, nationwide use. VHG's marketplace presence is commanding: seventy-four (74) branded properties across eighteen (18) states and the Caribbean, generating $1.87 billion in revenue in fiscal year 2024, supported by a $142 million annual marketing investment. The evidence of actual consumer confusion is compelling and well-documented, and VHG's claims are supported by strong legal authority under both federal and state law.

We look forward to continuing to work with you and the VHG team to bring this matter to a successful resolution. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly if you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter or any aspect of the case. I am available by telephone at (305) 554-8215 or by email at mdelgado@calderwoodharkness.com. Additionally, Peter Vassiliev (pvassiliev@calderwoodharkness.com; (305) 554-8244) and Wendy Schultz (wschultz@calderwoodharkness.com; (305) 554-8267) are available as day-to-day points of contact for coordination on discovery preparation, document collection, and other operational matters. We would be happy to schedule a call or an in-person meeting at your convenience to discuss any of the topics addressed in this letter in further detail.

Thank you for your continued confidence in Calderwood & Harkness LLP.

Very truly yours,

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

By: ________

Marcus Delgado Partner

400 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3200 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 554-8215

Email: mdelgado@calderwoodharkness.com

cc: Donald R. Hargrove, Chief Executive Officer, Verimark Hospitality Group Inc. Leonard Yee, Vice President of Brand Protection, Verimark Hospitality Group Inc. Catherine Bloom, Partner, Calderwood & Harkness LLP Peter Vassiliev, Senior Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP Wendy Schultz, Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP

Enclosures:

1. Conformed copy of Verified Complaint (filed July 22, 2025)

2. Conformed copy of Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction (filed July 22, 2025)

3. Conformed copy of Declaration of Leonard Yee (filed July 22, 2025)

4. Conformed copy of Declaration of Jorge A. Quintana (filed July 22, 2025)

5. Conformed copy of Proposed Preliminary Injunction Order (filed July 22, 2025)

6. Conformed copy of Notice of Related TTAB Proceeding (filed July 22, 2025)

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication, including all attachments and enclosures, is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. It is intended exclusively for the use of the addressee(s) named above and other authorized representatives of Verimark Hospitality Group Inc. If you are not the intended recipient, or if you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone at (305) 554-8200 and permanently delete all copies of this communication and any attachments. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution, or copying of this communication or its contents is strictly prohibited and may violate applicable law.

Date	Event
August 12, 2025	Deadline for CVR to file answer or responsive pleading
September 10, 2025	Preliminary injunction hearing before the Hon. Adrienne M. Castellano
To be determined	Rule 26(f) discovery planning conference (to be scheduled after CVR files its responsive pleading)
To be determined	Court scheduling conference and entry of scheduling order
Ongoing	TTAB Opposition No. 91/287,456 remains suspended

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP Attorneys at Law 400 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3200 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 554-8200 Facsimile: (305) 554-8201 www.calderwoodharkness.com
July 23, 2025
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND HAND DELIVERY
Sonia M. Trevino, Esq. General Counsel Verimark Hospitality Group Inc. 2200 Bayshore Boulevard, Suite 1400 Tampa, FL 33629
Re: Verimark Hospitality Group Inc. v. Coral Verimark Resorts LLC — Post-Filing Status Update Case No. 1:25-cv-22847-AMC (S.D. Fla.) Matter No. 1021-00004
Dear Sonia:
1. Purpose and Overview
We write to provide you and the Verimark Hospitality Group Inc. ("VHG") leadership team with a comprehensive status update following the initiation of federal litigation against Coral Verimark Resorts LLC ("CVR") on July 22, 2025. This letter summarizes all actions taken in connection with the filing of suit, describes the current procedural posture of the case, and identifies the immediate next steps and action items that will require VHG's attention and cooperation in the coming weeks.
As you are aware, this matter arises from CVR's unauthorized adoption and use of the "VERIMARK RESORTS" name and "VR Verimark" stylized logo in connection with its resort properties — conduct that directly infringes upon VHG's longstanding and well-established family of VERIMARK trademarks. After extensive pre-litigation efforts, including cease-and-desist correspondence that failed to produce an acceptable resolution, we determined in consultation with your office that the filing of a federal complaint and an accompanying motion for preliminary injunctive relief was both necessary and warranted.
We are pleased to report that the Calderwood & Harkness engagement team remains fully staffed and committed to the vigorous prosecution of this matter. The team consists of Marcus Delgado, Responsible Partner; Catherine Bloom, Billing Partner; Peter Vassiliev, Lead Associate; and Wendy Schultz, Working Associate. Each member of the team is actively engaged in case development, and we have allocated sufficient resources to ensure that all deadlines and strategic objectives are met in a timely and efficient manner. We remain confident in the strength of VHG's position and are prepared to pursue this matter through all stages of litigation as may be required.
The sections that follow address each aspect of the case in detail.
2. Filings Completed on July 22, 2025
2.1 Verified Complaint
On July 22, 2025, Calderwood & Harkness LLP filed a Verified Complaint on behalf of VHG in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division. The case has been assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-22847-AMC and has been referred to the calendar of the Honorable Adrienne M. Castellano, United States District Judge. A conformed copy of the Verified Complaint is enclosed with this letter for your records.
The Verified Complaint asserts the following five counts against CVR:
1. Count I — Federal Trademark Infringement under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1), based on CVR's unauthorized use of marks confusingly similar to VHG's federally registered VERIMARK trademarks in connection with identical and closely related hospitality services.
2. Count II — Federal Unfair Competition / False Designation of Origin under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), based on CVR's use of the "VERIMARK RESORTS" name and "VR Verimark" stylized logo in a manner likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to the origin, sponsorship, or affiliation of CVR's resort properties and services.
3. Count III — Federal Trademark Dilution under Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), based on CVR's dilution by blurring of VHG's famous VERIMARK marks through the use of substantially similar marks in the same hospitality industry, thereby weakening the distinctiveness of VHG's marks.
4. Count IV — Florida Common Law Trademark Infringement, based on VHG's longstanding common law rights in the VERIMARK marks predating CVR's adoption of its infringing marks, and CVR's use of confusingly similar marks in commerce within the State of Florida.
5. Count V — Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.204, based on CVR's deceptive and unfair trade practices in adopting and using marks confusingly similar to VHG's established marks, thereby misleading consumers regarding the source and affiliation of CVR's services.
The Complaint sets forth in detail VHG's extensive trademark portfolio and rights, including the following three federal trademark registrations owned by VHG, each of which is valid, subsisting, and incontestable:
• U.S. Registration No. 3,742,618 for the mark VERIMARK (standard characters), registered on March 17, 2009, with a first use in commerce date of September 3, 2007, covering services in International Class 043 (hotel and resort services, temporary accommodations, and restaurant services);
• U.S. Registration No. 4,105,233 for the mark VERIMARK HOSPITALITY (standard characters), registered on January 10, 2012, covering services in International Classes 035 and 043 (hotel management, resort management, and hospitality services); and
• U.S. Registration No. 5,489,701 for the VERIMARK "V" Design Mark (stylized), registered on May 22, 2018, covering services in International Classes 035, 041, and 043 (hotel and resort services, entertainment services, and business management of hotels and resorts).
The Complaint identifies CVR's infringing conduct, which commenced on or about March 1, 2024, when CVR began using the name "VERIMARK RESORTS" and a stylized "VR Verimark" logo in connection with the marketing, promotion, and operation of boutique resort properties. The Complaint describes CVR's two operational resort properties — the first located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, which opened on or about March 15, 2024, and the second located in Harborline Enterprises Head Island, South Carolina, which opened on or about June 1, 2024. The Complaint further identifies a third CVR property currently under development in Destin, Florida, which CVR has publicly announced plans to open in the first quarter of 2026.
The Complaint details twenty-three (23) documented instances of actual consumer confusion compiled by Broadleaf Investigations Inc. between March 2024 and June 2025. These instances include, among other things, misdirected reservation inquiries made to VHG properties intended for CVR locations, social media misattributions, and customer reviews posted on VHG property pages that reference experiences at CVR-operated facilities. This evidence of actual confusion is significant because it directly supports VHG's claims of likelihood of confusion — the central element in federal and state trademark infringement actions.
The Verified Complaint was verified by Leonard Yee, Vice President of Brand Protection for VHG, who attested under penalty of perjury to the truth of the factual allegations set forth therein based on his personal knowledge and review of VHG's business records.
The Complaint seeks the following relief from the Court:
• Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining CVR from any further use of the "VERIMARK RESORTS" name, the "VR Verimark" stylized logo, and any other marks confusingly similar to VHG's registered VERIMARK marks;
• An award of actual damages sustained by VHG or, in the alternative, an accounting and disgorgement of CVR's profits attributable to its infringing use of the VERIMARK marks. In this regard, the Complaint alleges that CVR generated combined gross revenue of approximately $4.3 million for calendar year 2024, with projected gross revenue of approximately $6.8 million for calendar year 2025, totaling $11.1 million over the relevant period;
• Enhanced or treble damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), given the willful and deliberate nature of CVR's infringement;
• An award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as an exceptional case under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a);
• An order directing the cancellation of CVR's pending United States Trademark Application Serial No. 98/432,117 for "VERIMARK RESORTS" in International Class 043; and
• Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
2.2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Concurrently with the filing of the Verified Complaint on July 22, 2025, we filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction seeking an order from the Court enjoining CVR from continuing to use the "VERIMARK RESORTS" name, the "VR Verimark" stylized logo, or any confusingly similar marks pending the final resolution of this action.
The Motion was accompanied by a detailed Memorandum of Law in Support of VHG's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which analyzes the well-established four-factor preliminary injunction standard applicable in the Eleventh Circuit. Specifically, the Memorandum addresses the following factors:
Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Merits. The Memorandum applies the Eleventh Circuit's seven-factor likelihood-of-confusion test set forth in Frehling Enterprises, Inc. v. International Select Group, Inc., 192 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 1999), and its progeny. The analysis demonstrates that each of the seven factors weighs heavily in VHG's favor: (i) the strength and distinctiveness of VHG's VERIMARK marks, which are arbitrary in the context of hospitality services and enjoy incontestable status; (ii) the high degree of similarity between VHG's marks and CVR's "VERIMARK RESORTS" name and "VR Verimark" logo, both of which incorporate the dominant VERIMARK element; (iii) the identity and close similarity of the parties' services, both of which consist of hospitality and resort services; (iv) the overlap in the parties' trade channels and customer base; (v) the similarity in the parties' advertising methods and media; (vi) CVR's intent in adopting the mark, as evidenced by the pre-litigation correspondence and the circumstances of adoption; and (vii) the existence of twenty-three documented instances of actual consumer confusion.
Irreparable Harm. The Memorandum establishes that VHG will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, based on the ongoing loss of goodwill and brand dilution resulting from CVR's infringing use. The Memorandum invokes the statutory presumption of irreparable harm available under 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a) upon a finding of likelihood of success in a trademark infringement action, and further demonstrates irreparable harm through the documented evidence of actual consumer confusion, damage to VHG's brand reputation, and the ongoing nature of CVR's infringing conduct.
Balance of Equities. The Memorandum demonstrates that the balance of equities tips decidedly in VHG's favor. VHG has over seventeen (17) years of continuous, substantial, and exclusive use of the VERIMARK marks in interstate commerce, dating back to September 3, 2007. By contrast, CVR has been in operation for approximately sixteen (16) months and adopted its infringing marks with full knowledge of VHG's prior rights, as evidenced by CVR's failure to conduct adequate trademark clearance and its receipt of VHG's cease-and-desist correspondence. Any hardship to CVR resulting from a preliminary injunction is self-inflicted and attributable to CVR's own decision to adopt and continue using an infringing mark despite notice of VHG's prior rights.
Public Interest. The Memorandum establishes that the public interest is served by granting preliminary injunctive relief. The Lanham Act was enacted, in significant part, to protect the consuming public from confusion as to the source or origin of goods and services. The twenty-three documented instances of actual consumer confusion demonstrate that the public interest in preventing ongoing consumer deception strongly favors the issuance of a preliminary injunction.
The Motion was supported by the following evidentiary submissions:
• Declaration of Leonard Yee, Vice President of Brand Protection for VHG. Mr. Yee's declaration authenticates VHG's trademark registrations and certificates of registration, provides a comprehensive history of the VERIMARK brand dating back to its founding, details VHG's annual marketing expenditure of approximately $142 million in fiscal year 2024, identifies the geographic proximity of CVR's Fort Lauderdale resort property (located approximately four (4) miles from VHG's flagship Verimark Oceanview property in Fort Lauderdale), and recounts the history of cease-and-desist correspondence between the parties.
• Declaration of Jorge A. Quintana, Principal Investigator at Broadleaf Investigations Inc. Mr. Quintana's declaration documents the twenty-three (23) instances of actual consumer confusion identified and compiled by Broadleaf between March 2024 and June 2025. The confusion evidence includes misdirected reservation inquiries from consumers who intended to book accommodations at CVR properties but contacted VHG properties instead (and vice versa), social media posts and tags misattributing CVR content to VHG, and customer reviews posted on VHG property pages on major travel platforms (including Kestrel Group and Pinnacle Partners LLC) that clearly describe experiences at CVR-operated facilities.
• Proposed Preliminary Injunction Order. We also filed a proposed order for the Court's consideration setting forth the specific terms of the requested preliminary injunction, including the scope of the enjoined conduct, the requirement that CVR remove all infringing signage, marketing materials, and digital content within fourteen (14) days of entry, and the posting of a nominal injunction bond.
Conformed copies of the Memorandum in Support, the Declaration of Leonard Yee, the Declaration of Jorge A. Quintana, and the Proposed Preliminary Injunction Order are enclosed with this letter.
2.3 Notice of Related TTAB Proceeding
In addition to the Complaint and the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, we filed a Notice of Related Proceeding informing the Court of the pending proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB"): Opposition No. 91/287,456, Verimark Hospitality Group Inc. v. Coral Verimark Resorts LLC. The Notice advises the Court that the TTAB proceeding was suspended by stipulation of the parties, entered on February 18, 2025, pending the outcome of this district court action. The Notice requests that the Court take note of the related proceeding for case management and coordination purposes, as the issues presented in the TTAB opposition substantially overlap with the claims asserted in this action. A conformed copy of the Notice is enclosed.
3. Service of Process
We confirm that service of the Summons and Verified Complaint was effected upon Coral Verimark Resorts LLC on July 22, 2025. Service was accomplished both at CVR's principal office located at 6810 Ocean Drive, Unit 3, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308, and upon CVR's designated registered agent, Suncoast Filing Services LLC, located at 100 S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 210, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301. Affidavits of service will be filed with the Court in due course.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1)(A)(i), CVR is required to serve an answer or other responsive pleading within twenty-one (21) days of service. Accordingly, CVR's answer or responsive pleading is due by August 12, 2025.
As a matter of professional courtesy and in accordance with applicable rules of practice, copies of all filed papers — including the Verified Complaint, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and supporting papers, and the Notice of Related TTAB Proceeding — were also served upon CVR's known outside counsel: Natasha K. Okonkwo, Esq. and Derek S. Fuentes, Esq. of Alcántara Reeves LLP, located at 200 Las Olas Circle, Suite 700, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301. We understand from prior correspondence that Ms. Okonkwo and Mr. Fuentes represent CVR in connection with the TTAB opposition and anticipate that they will also enter appearances on behalf of CVR in this district court action, although we have not yet received confirmation of that representation.
4. Preliminary Injunction Hearing
The Court has scheduled the hearing on VHG's Motion for Preliminary Injunction for September 10, 2025. We are preparing in earnest for the hearing and anticipate the following procedural developments in the interim period.
First, we anticipate that CVR will file an opposition brief and supporting evidence in response to VHG's Motion. The Court's local rules and any order setting the briefing schedule will govern the deadlines for CVR's opposition and VHG's reply. Once we receive CVR's opposition papers, we will promptly review them, share them with your office, and prepare a comprehensive reply memorandum addressing each of CVR's arguments.
Second, we are preparing for the possibility that the Court will require or permit live testimony at the hearing. In trademark cases involving motions for preliminary injunctive relief, it is not uncommon for the court to request testimony from key witnesses, particularly where the movant relies on evidence of actual confusion and the credibility and weight of that evidence are contested. We anticipate that the Court may wish to hear testimony from Leonard Yee, VHG's Vice President of Brand Protection, who can speak to VHG's brand history, marketing expenditures, the impact of CVR's conduct, and the cease-and-desist correspondence. We also expect that testimony from Jorge A. Quintana of Broadleaf Investigations Inc. may be required to authenticate and elaborate upon the consumer confusion evidence. We will coordinate with Mr. Yee and Mr. Quintana in the coming weeks to prepare them for potential testimony, including conducting preparatory sessions as the hearing date approaches.
Third, we may also present expert testimony from Dr. Irene Calder of Pinnacle Brand Analytics LLC, contingent upon the completion of her consumer confusion survey in advance of the September 10 hearing date. As discussed in further detail in Section 5 below, Dr. Calder's engagement is currently being finalized. If the survey results are available in time, her testimony could significantly strengthen VHG's showing on the likelihood-of-confusion element. We will keep you advised of the timeline and feasibility of presenting this evidence at the preliminary injunction stage.
5. Expert Engagement
5.1 Consumer Confusion Survey — Pinnacle Brand Analytics LLC
We are in the process of formally engaging Dr. Irene Calder, Ph.D. (Consumer Psychology), of Pinnacle Brand Analytics LLC, located at 1500 Peachtree Street N.W., Suite 800, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, to design and conduct a consumer confusion survey for use as evidence in this litigation.
Dr. Calder is a nationally recognized expert in consumer perception and trademark confusion surveys, with over twenty years of experience in the field. She has been qualified as an expert witness in federal courts across the country and has conducted surveys in numerous high-profile trademark disputes in the hospitality, consumer products, and technology sectors.
Dr. Calder will design and administer a Teflon-format likelihood-of-confusion survey specifically tailored to assess consumer perception regarding CVR's use of "VERIMARK RESORTS" and the "VR Verimark" stylized logo in relation to VHG's registered VERIMARK marks. The Teflon format is widely accepted in the Eleventh Circuit and is appropriate for measuring whether consumers associate CVR's marks with VHG or perceive a sponsorship or affiliation relationship between the two entities.
The fee structure for Dr. Calder's engagement is as follows: a flat fee of $45,000 for the design, administration, analysis, and reporting of the survey, plus $650 per hour for any deposition testimony and trial testimony that may be required. These fees are consistent with market rates for survey experts of Dr. Calder's caliber and experience.
Our target is to complete the survey in advance of the September 10, 2025 preliminary injunction hearing, if feasible given the timeline constraints. However, should the survey not be completed by that date, the results will be available for use in connection with any subsequent summary judgment proceedings or at trial. We will provide you with regular updates on the status of this engagement.
5.2 Damages Analysis — Drummond Appraisal Group Inc.
We are also engaging Graham T. Whitford, CPA, CFF (Certified in Financial Forensics), of Drummond Appraisal Group Inc., located at 50 Milk Street, Suite 1600, Boston, Massachusetts 02109, to prepare a comprehensive damages analysis in support of VHG's claims for monetary relief.
Mr. Whitford is a highly experienced forensic accountant and damages expert who has been retained in over sixty trademark infringement and unfair competition matters. He will prepare a detailed analysis covering the following categories of damages:
• VHG's Lost Profits. Based on VHG's internal reservation-tracking data and competitive impact analysis, VHG estimates that it sustained approximately $2.1 million in diverted bookings during calendar year 2024 as a direct result of CVR's infringing use of the VERIMARK name. Mr. Whitford will independently verify and refine this estimate through a rigorous but-for analysis.
• CVR's Profits. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), VHG is entitled to recover CVR's profits attributable to the infringement. CVR's combined gross revenue for calendar years 2024 and 2025 is estimated at $11.1 million ($4.3 million in CY 2024 and a projected $6.8 million in CY 2025). Based on publicly available information and industry benchmarks, CVR's estimated profit margin is approximately 18%, yielding estimated profits of approximately $2.0 million over the relevant period.
• Reasonable Royalty Alternative. In the event the Court determines that a reasonable royalty is the appropriate measure of damages, Mr. Whitford will calculate a reasonable royalty based on a hypothetical negotiation framework. A preliminary estimate, applying a royalty rate of 5% to CVR's gross revenue of $11.1 million, yields a reasonable royalty of approximately $555,000.
• Treble Damages Analysis. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), the Court has discretion to award up to three times the amount of actual damages or profits in cases involving willful infringement. Mr. Whitford will prepare a treble damages analysis, with a preliminary ceiling estimate of $6.0 million based on trebling CVR's estimated profits of $2.0 million.
Mr. Whitford's standard billing rate is $575 per hour. His engagement letter is being finalized and will be circulated to your office for review and your records in the coming days.
6. Coordination with TTAB Opposition
As noted above, the TTAB Opposition proceeding, Opposition No. 91/287,456, remains suspended pursuant to the stipulated order entered by the Board on February 18, 2025. The opposition concerns CVR's United States Trademark Application Serial No. 98/432,117 for the mark "VERIMARK RESORTS" in International Class 043 (hotel and resort services), which was filed by CVR on April 15, 2024. VHG timely filed its Notice of Opposition on the grounds of priority, likelihood of confusion, and dilution.
Our recommended strategy is to maintain the suspension of the TTAB proceeding and allow the district court action to proceed. This approach is tactically advantageous for several reasons. First, the district court action provides a broader forum in which VHG can seek not only cancellation of CVR's pending application but also injunctive relief and monetary damages — remedies unavailable in the TTAB. Second, a favorable outcome in the district court — whether in the form of a preliminary injunction, a summary judgment ruling, or a trial verdict — will substantially support the cancellation of CVR's pending application and may effectively resolve the TTAB opposition by collateral estoppel or by rendering CVR's application moot. Third, proceeding in district court first avoids the risk of inconsistent rulings and conserves the parties' and the Board's resources.
We will continue to monitor the TTAB docket and will file any necessary status reports or motions to maintain the suspension. Should CVR seek to lift the suspension and reactivate the TTAB proceeding, we will promptly advise you and take appropriate responsive action.
7. Discovery Preparation
We anticipate that formal discovery will commence after CVR files its answer or responsive pleading (due August 12, 2025) and after the parties conduct a discovery planning conference pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The Rule 26(f) conference must typically be held at least twenty-one (21) days before the date of the Court's scheduling conference or the deadline for a scheduling order. We expect the Court to issue an order setting deadlines for the Rule 26(f) conference and the submission of a Joint Scheduling Report in the near future.
In the interim, we are proactively preparing VHG's initial discovery requests so that they may be served promptly upon the commencement of the discovery period. We are drafting the following categories of discovery:
Document Requests. We are preparing a comprehensive set of requests for production of documents directed to CVR, targeting the following categories of materials:
• CVR's business formation records, including articles of organization, operating agreements, membership records, and the identities of CVR's principals, managers, and investors (believed to include Rafael J. Medina and Gabriela N. Serrano);
• Any trademark clearance searches, legal opinions, or due diligence analyses conducted by or on behalf of CVR prior to or in connection with the adoption of the "VERIMARK RESORTS" name or the "VR Verimark" logo;
• All marketing, advertising, and promotional materials used by CVR in connection with its resort properties, including print materials, digital advertisements, website content, social media content, and email marketing campaigns;
• CVR's complete financial records, including revenue, cost, and profit data for each resort property on a monthly and annual basis;
• All customer communications, including reservation confirmations, guest correspondence, complaint records, and customer satisfaction surveys;
• All internal communications among CVR's principals, managers, employees, and agents regarding the selection, adoption, and continued use of the "VERIMARK" name, including any communications referencing VHG or VHG's trademarks.
Interrogatories. We are preparing interrogatories focused on the following topics:
• CVR's knowledge of VHG and VHG's VERIMARK marks prior to CVR's adoption of the "VERIMARK RESORTS" name, including whether any of CVR's principals, managers, or employees had prior experience in the hospitality industry or awareness of VHG's brand;
• Detailed revenue data by property, by quarter, and by service line;
• All incidents of customer confusion known to CVR, including misdirected reservations, customer complaints, and any other instances in which customers expressed confusion between CVR and VHG;
• The basis for CVR's selection of the "VERIMARK" name and the creative development of the "VR Verimark" logo.
Requests for Admission. We are preparing requests for admission directed to establishing key facts, including VHG's ownership of its federal trademark registrations, VHG's priority of use, the similarity of the parties' respective marks, and the overlap in the parties' services and geographic markets.
In addition, we are preparing third-party subpoenas to NetLedger Domains Inc., the registrar for the domain name www.verimarkresortsgroup.com, seeking the production of complete domain registration records, including the date of registration, the identity of the registrant, and any WHOIS privacy or proxy service records. This information will be relevant to establishing the timeline of CVR's adoption of the VERIMARK name and its intent in doing so.
8. Action Items for VHG
The following items require VHG's attention and prompt action in the coming weeks.
8.1 Designation of Rule 30(b)(6) Representative
We request that VHG identify and designate a corporate representative or representatives pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) who can testify on behalf of the company regarding the following topics: VHG's trademark portfolio and registration history; VHG's brand development and marketing history; VHG's marketing practices and expenditures; VHG's awareness of CVR's infringing conduct; the impact of CVR's conduct on VHG's business, including booking diversions, customer confusion, and damage to goodwill; and VHG's pre-litigation efforts to address CVR's infringement, including the cease-and-desist correspondence.
We suggest Leonard Yee, Vice President of Brand Protection, as the primary Rule 30(b)(6) designee given his intimate familiarity with the facts underlying this dispute and his role as the verifying officer on the Complaint. We may also recommend designating additional representatives for topics relating to financial impact, revenue management, and marketing, and we will work with you to identify appropriate individuals as those needs become clearer.
8.2 Document Preservation
We take this opportunity to remind VHG of its ongoing obligation to preserve all documents and electronically stored information ("ESI") that are potentially relevant to this litigation. This obligation arose no later than May 14, 2024, when VHG transmitted its first cease-and-desist letter to CVR and the prospect of litigation became reasonably foreseeable. However, given the formal commencement of litigation, we recommend that VHG confirm that a comprehensive litigation hold is in place and has been communicated to all relevant custodians.
The preservation obligation extends to, but is not limited to, the following categories of documents and ESI:
• All communications — including emails, text messages, instant messages, memoranda, and notes — referencing CVR, Coral Verimark, Coral Verimark Resorts, Rafael J. Medina, Gabriela N. Serrano, or any CVR property;
• All internal analyses, reports, memoranda, or presentations concerning booking diversions, competitive impact, market overlap, or customer confusion attributable to CVR's operations;
• All marketing and brand protection files, including brand guidelines, trademark watch reports, enforcement correspondence, and trademark prosecution files;
• All consumer complaints, inquiries, or feedback reflecting confusion between VHG and CVR, including call center logs, emails from guests, and records maintained by property-level guest services teams;
• All social media records and social media monitoring reports, including brand mention tracking, sentiment analysis reports, and records of posts or reviews flagged as involving potential confusion with CVR;
• All financial records, including revenue reports, reservation-tracking data, occupancy records, and competitive performance benchmarks, for VHG properties located in markets where CVR operates or intends to operate (Fort Lauderdale, Harborline Enterprises Head Island, and Destin).
We understand that a litigation hold may have been issued during the cease-and-desist phase of this matter. If so, we request that VHG confirm that the hold has been updated and re-circulated to all relevant custodians to reflect the filing of the federal action and the expanded scope of the preservation obligation. If a formal litigation hold has not yet been issued, we strongly recommend that one be issued and distributed immediately. We are happy to assist in preparing the litigation hold notice if that would be helpful.
Please confirm the status of VHG's litigation hold at your earliest convenience.
8.3 Internal Contacts for discovery Coordination
To facilitate the efficient collection and review of documents in response to CVR's anticipated discovery requests and in support of VHG's affirmative case, we request that VHG identify the key custodians whose files and records should be searched and collected. Based on our understanding of the matter, the following individuals should be among the initial custodians:
• Donald R. Hargrove, Chief Executive Officer;
• Sonia M. Trevino, General Counsel;
• Leonard Yee, Vice President of Brand Protection;
• Relevant marketing department personnel, including the individuals responsible for brand management, digital marketing, and social media oversight; and
• Relevant revenue management personnel, including those responsible for reservation tracking, competitive market analysis, and financial reporting for the affected properties.
We also ask that VHG begin assembling the reservation-tracking data and financial records that support the preliminary estimate of $2.1 million in lost profits attributable to diverted bookings during calendar year 2024. Mr. Whitford of Drummond Appraisal Group will need access to this data as he develops his damages analysis, and having the data organized and available in advance will expedite his work and reduce costs. Peter Vassiliev will be reaching out to coordinate the collection and transfer of these materials.
9. Anticipated Defense Positions
Based on our review of CVR's responses to VHG's pre-litigation cease-and-desist correspondence and our assessment of the likely defense strategy, we anticipate that CVR will assert several defenses, each of which we believe can be effectively rebutted. The principal anticipated defense positions are as follows:
Descriptiveness or Genericness. In its response to VHG's cease-and-desist letters, CVR took the position that "Verimark" is a descriptive or generic term meaning "verified mark of quality" in the hospitality industry, and that VHG cannot claim exclusive rights in a common descriptive term. We are well-positioned to counter this argument. VHG's three federal trademark registrations carry a presumption of validity under 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b), and two of the three registrations have achieved incontestable status under 15 U.S.C. § 1065, which conclusively establishes that the marks are not generic and are at minimum descriptive with acquired distinctiveness. Moreover, "Verimark" is a coined, arbitrary term that does not describe any quality, characteristic, or feature of hospitality services. CVR's post-hoc construction of a descriptive meaning is unpersuasive and will not withstand scrutiny.
Niche Market Distinction. CVR has previously argued that its use of "VERIMARK RESORTS" is in connection with a distinct "boutique luxury coastal resort" niche that is distinguishable from VHG's broader hospitality brand, and that the relevant consumer bases do not overlap. This argument fails for multiple reasons: VHG operates properties across the full spectrum of the hospitality market, including luxury and boutique resort properties; the parties' services are in the same International Class (IC 043); CVR operates in the same geographic markets as VHG (Fort Lauderdale, in particular); and the twenty-three instances of actual consumer confusion directly refute any claim that the respective consumer bases are distinct.
Laches or Acquiescence. CVR may assert a laches or acquiescence defense based on the approximately fourteen-month gap between VHG's first cease-and-desist letter (May 14, 2024) and the filing of suit (July 22, 2025). However, the laches defense faces significant obstacles. First, the Eleventh Circuit applies a strong presumption against laches where the defendant's infringing use commenced within the statute of limitations period analogous to the trademark claims, which in Florida is four years for unfair competition claims. VHG filed suit well within that period. Second, VHG did not sit on its rights — it sent multiple cease-and-desist communications, initiated the TTAB opposition, and engaged in settlement discussions before determining that litigation was necessary. Third, even if laches were established, it would not bar VHG's claims for injunctive relief, as laches typically only limits the recovery of retrospective monetary damages. Fourth, where the infringement is willful — as we intend to prove — laches is generally unavailable as a defense.
We will continue to refine our analysis of CVR's anticipated defenses as the case develops and as we receive CVR's responsive pleading and any opposition to the preliminary injunction motion.
10. Budget and Fee Update
As set forth in the engagement letter dated June 16, 2025, the estimated legal fees for this matter through the preliminary injunction phase are in the range of $275,000 to $375,000. We are pleased to report that costs incurred to date are within the lower range of this estimate, reflecting the team's efficiency in preparing the initial filings and the benefit of the substantial investigative work completed during the pre-litigation phase.
Expert fees will be billed separately as expenses pursuant to the terms of the engagement letter. The current expert fee commitments are as follows:
• Pinnacle Brand Analytics LLC (Dr. Irene Calder): $45,000 flat fee for the consumer confusion survey, plus $650 per hour for deposition and trial testimony;
• Drummond Appraisal Group Inc. (Graham T. Whitford): $575 per hour for all services;
• Broadleaf Investigations Inc. (Jorge A. Quintana): $18,500 flat fee for the initial investigation and documentation of consumer confusion instances (engagement completed; final report delivered).
Monthly invoices will be provided in accordance with VHG's billing guidelines, with the first invoice covering all activity for the month of July 2025. We will continue to manage the budget carefully and will promptly notify you if we anticipate any material deviation from the estimated fee range.
11. Upcoming Key Dates Summary
For ease of reference, the following is a summary of the key upcoming dates and deadlines in this matter:
We will promptly advise you of any additional dates set by the Court or arising from the progression of the case.
Closing
We are confident that VHG is in a strong position in this litigation. VHG's trademark portfolio is robust and well-established, anchored by three federal registrations — two of which are incontestable — and over seventeen years of continuous, nationwide use. VHG's marketplace presence is commanding: seventy-four (74) branded properties across eighteen (18) states and the Caribbean, generating $1.87 billion in revenue in fiscal year 2024, supported by a $142 million annual marketing investment. The evidence of actual consumer confusion is compelling and well-documented, and VHG's claims are supported by strong legal authority under both federal and state law.
We look forward to continuing to work with you and the VHG team to bring this matter to a successful resolution. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly if you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter or any aspect of the case. I am available by telephone at (305) 554-8215 or by email at mdelgado@calderwoodharkness.com. Additionally, Peter Vassiliev (pvassiliev@calderwoodharkness.com; (305) 554-8244) and Wendy Schultz (wschultz@calderwoodharkness.com; (305) 554-8267) are available as day-to-day points of contact for coordination on discovery preparation, document collection, and other operational matters. We would be happy to schedule a call or an in-person meeting at your convenience to discuss any of the topics addressed in this letter in further detail.
Thank you for your continued confidence in Calderwood & Harkness LLP.
Very truly yours,
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
By: ________
Marcus Delgado Partner
400 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3200 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 554-8215
Email: mdelgado@calderwoodharkness.com
cc: Donald R. Hargrove, Chief Executive Officer, Verimark Hospitality Group Inc. Leonard Yee, Vice President of Brand Protection, Verimark Hospitality Group Inc. Catherine Bloom, Partner, Calderwood & Harkness LLP Peter Vassiliev, Senior Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP Wendy Schultz, Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
Enclosures:
1. Conformed copy of Verified Complaint (filed July 22, 2025)
2. Conformed copy of Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction (filed July 22, 2025)
3. Conformed copy of Declaration of Leonard Yee (filed July 22, 2025)
4. Conformed copy of Declaration of Jorge A. Quintana (filed July 22, 2025)
5. Conformed copy of Proposed Preliminary Injunction Order (filed July 22, 2025)
6. Conformed copy of Notice of Related TTAB Proceeding (filed July 22, 2025)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication, including all attachments and enclosures, is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. It is intended exclusively for the use of the addressee(s) named above and other authorized representatives of Verimark Hospitality Group Inc. If you are not the intended recipient, or if you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone at (305) 554-8200 and permanently delete all copies of this communication and any attachments. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution, or copying of this communication or its contents is strictly prohibited and may violate applicable law.
Date | Event
August 12, 2025 | Deadline for CVR to file answer or responsive pleading
September 10, 2025 | Preliminary injunction hearing before the Hon. Adrienne M. Castellano
To be determined | Rule 26(f) discovery planning conference (to be scheduled after CVR files its responsive pleading)
To be determined | Court scheduling conference and entry of scheduling order
Ongoing | TTAB Opposition No. 91/287,456 remains suspended

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND HAND DELIVERY

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts