UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION
VERIMARK HOSPITALITY GROUP INC., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORAL VERIMARK RESORTS LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
Defendant.
Case No. 1:25-cv-22847-AMC
Hon. Adrienne M. Castellano United States District Judge
PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Filed: July 22, 2025 Hearing Scheduled: September 10, 2025
Marcus Delgado, Esq. (Responsible Partner) Florida Bar No. 0087421 mdelgado@calderwoodharkness.com
Catherine Bloom, Esq. (Billing Partner) Florida Bar No. 0093187 cbloom@calderwoodharkness.com
Peter Vassiliev, Esq. (Lead Associate) Florida Bar No. 0124563 pvassiliev@calderwoodharkness.com
Wendy Schultz, Esq. (Working Associate) Florida Bar No. 0131089 wschultz@calderwoodharkness.com
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP 400 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3200 Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 555-8700 Facsimile: (305) 555-8701
Attorneys for Plaintiff Verimark Hospitality Group Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Statutes and Rules
Treatises and Other Authorities
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiff Verimark Hospitality Group Inc. ("VHG" or "Plaintiff") is a publicly traded hospitality and real estate company listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the ticker symbol VMHG and headquartered at 2200 Bayshore Boulevard, Suite 1400, Tampa, Florida 33629. VHG is a nationally recognized leader in the luxury hospitality industry, with annual revenue of $1.87 billion for fiscal year 2024 and a portfolio of 74 branded resort and hotel properties spanning 18 states and the Caribbean. For more than seventeen years — since September 3, 2007 — VHG has continuously used the VERIMARK mark in interstate commerce to identify and distinguish its hospitality services, building a brand that is synonymous with luxury, quality, and consumer trust.
VHG's investment in its VERIMARK brand has been enormous. In fiscal year 2024 alone, VHG spent approximately $142 million on marketing and brand promotion — approximately 7.6% of its total annual revenue — to cultivate and maintain the strong consumer recognition and goodwill embodied in the VERIMARK name and associated marks. VHG holds three federal trademark registrations, all in International Class 043 for hotel and resort services: U.S. Registration No. 3,742,618 for the word mark "VERIMARK," registered on March 17, 2009; U.S. Registration No. 4,105,233 for the word mark "VERIMARK HOSPITALITY," registered on January 10, 2012; and U.S. Registration No. 5,489,701 for the VERIMARK "V" Design Mark (a stylized mark featuring VHG's distinctive navy-and-gold color scheme), registered on May 22, 2018. These registrations, maintained continuously and without challenge, are among VHG's most valuable corporate assets.
Defendant Coral Verimark Resorts LLC ("CVR" or "Defendant") is a Florida limited liability company formed on January 8, 2024, and operated by Managing Member Rafael J. Medina and Co-Member Gabriela N. Serrano. CVR commenced use of the marks "VERIMARK RESORTS" and "VR Verimark" in connection with boutique luxury coastal resort services in approximately March 2024 — more than sixteen years after VHG's first use of the VERIMARK mark in commerce. CVR's adoption and use of these marks was neither accidental nor innocent. Rather, CVR deliberately selected a name and logo that incorporate VHG's coined, distinctive mark in its entirety, and that closely mimic VHG's registered design mark, in order to trade on the goodwill and consumer recognition that VHG has painstakingly built over nearly two decades.
CVR operates two resort properties squarely within VHG's core southeastern United States market. The first, "Verimark Resorts Fort Lauderdale," opened on March 15, 2024, at 6810 Ocean Drive, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 — located approximately four miles from VHG's established "Verimark Oceanview" property at 1740 N. Fort Lauderdale Beach Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33305. The second, "Verimark Resorts Harborline Enterprises Head," opened on June 1, 2024, at 44 Lighthouse Road, Harborline Enterprises Head Island, South Carolina 29928. CVR is presently developing a third property at 1025 Emerald Coast Parkway, Destin, Florida 32541, demonstrating its continued intent to expand under the infringing marks into additional markets where VHG maintains branded properties.
Despite receiving two separate cease-and-desist letters — the first sent on May 14, 2024, by VHG General Counsel Sonia M. Trevino, and the second sent on August 12, 2024, by Plaintiff's outside counsel Marcus Delgado of Calderwood & Harkness LLP — CVR has refused to cease its infringing conduct. To the contrary, CVR responded through counsel by asserting the meritless position that "Verimark" is a descriptive or generic term meaning "verified mark of quality" in the hospitality industry. CVR then continued its expansion unabated, opening its Harborline Enterprises Head property less than three weeks after receiving VHG's initial demand letter and commencing development of its Destin property well after receiving both letters. No settlement discussions have taken place since September 2024, and CVR has shown no willingness to modify its conduct in any respect.
The consumer harm from CVR's infringement is not hypothetical — it is documented and ongoing. Broadleaf Investigations Inc., an independent marketplace investigation firm retained by VHG, has documented twenty-three instances of actual consumer confusion between March 2024 and June 2025. These instances include misdirected reservation inquiries, in which consumers attempting to book CVR properties contacted VHG's reservation system and vice versa; social media misattributions, in which consumers tagged VHG's @verimarkhospitality account when intending to reference CVR properties, and the reverse; and reviews posted on third-party travel platforms on VHG property pages that describe guest experiences at CVR's facilities. Each of these instances represents a real consumer who was deceived or confused as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the services offered under the "VERIMARK RESORTS" and "VR Verimark" marks.
VHG respectfully moves this Court for entry of a preliminary injunction enjoining CVR, its officers, agents, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them from all use of "VERIMARK RESORTS," "VR Verimark," and any marks confusingly similar to VHG's VERIMARK marks, pending final resolution of this action. As demonstrated below, VHG satisfies each of the four elements required for preliminary injunctive relief: a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm absent the injunction, a balance of equities that tips decidedly in VHG's favor, and consistency with the public interest.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Verimark Hospitality Group Inc. and Its VERIMARK Marks
Verimark Hospitality Group Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business and corporate headquarters at 2200 Bayshore Boulevard, Suite 1400, Tampa, Florida 33629. VHG's registered agent in Delaware is Capitol Statutory Services Inc., located at 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801. VHG is publicly traded on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the ticker symbol VMHG and is subject to reporting obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The company is led by Chief Executive Officer Donald R. Hargrove, with General Counsel Sonia M. Trevino overseeing all legal affairs and Vice President of Brand Protection Leonard Yee managing the company's extensive trademark portfolio and brand enforcement program. (See Declaration of Leonard Yee ("Yee Decl.") ¶¶ 2-5, filed concurrently herewith.)
VHG first used the VERIMARK mark in interstate commerce on September 3, 2007, when it opened its first branded property under the VERIMARK name. (Yee Decl. ¶ 8.) Since that date — more than seventeen years ago — VHG has continuously and exclusively used the VERIMARK mark in connection with hotel and resort services throughout the United States and the Caribbean. Over that period, VHG has grown its portfolio to encompass 74 branded resort and hotel properties operating across 18 states and in select Caribbean markets. (Yee Decl. ¶ 9.) VHG's portfolio includes flagship properties in major hospitality markets such as Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Tampa, Orlando, Charleston, Savannah, Harborline Enterprises Head, Destin, New Orleans, and multiple Caribbean resort destinations. (Yee Decl. ¶ 10.)
VHG holds three active federal trademark registrations, all in International Class 043 for hotel and resort services, which are listed on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office:
(1) U.S. Registration No. 3,742,618 — "VERIMARK" (word mark), registered on March 17, 2009, with a first use in commerce date of September 3, 2007. This registration has been continuously maintained through all required post-registration filings, including Section 8 and Section 9 affidavits, and has achieved incontestable status pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1065 following the filing of a Section 15 affidavit. (Yee Decl. ¶ 12; Ex. A (certified copy of registration certificate).)
(2) U.S. Registration No. 4,105,233 — "VERIMARK HOSPITALITY" (word mark), registered on January 10, 2012, with a first use in commerce date of September 3, 2007. This registration has been continuously maintained through all required post-registration filings. (Yee Decl. ¶ 13; Ex. B (certified copy of registration certificate).)
(3) U.S. Registration No. 5,489,701 — VERIMARK "V" Design Mark (stylized), registered on May 22, 2018. This mark features VHG's distinctive "V" monogram in a serif typeface rendered in VHG's signature navy-and-gold color scheme, which has become widely recognized among consumers as identifying VHG's hospitality services. (Yee Decl. ¶ 14; Ex. C (certified copy of registration certificate and specimen).)
These three registrations collectively protect VHG's word marks and design marks as used in connection with hotel and resort services and provide VHG with a presumption of validity, ownership, and the exclusive right to use the marks nationwide in connection with the registered services. 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b); 15 U.S.C. § 1115(a).
VHG's brand is among the most recognized in the American hospitality industry. For fiscal year 2024, VHG reported annual revenue of $1.87 billion, reflecting the enormous consumer demand for VHG's branded hospitality services. (Yee Decl. ¶ 17.) To build and sustain its brand recognition and goodwill, VHG invested approximately $142 million in marketing and brand promotion in fiscal year 2024 alone — representing approximately 7.6% of the company's total annual revenue ($142 million ÷ $1.87 billion ≈ 7.59%). (Yee Decl. ¶ 18.) This investment encompasses national and regional advertising campaigns across television, digital, print, and social media platforms; participation in major travel industry trade shows and conventions; sponsorship of hospitality and tourism events; and maintenance of a robust digital presence. (Yee Decl. ¶ 19.)
VHG operates the website www.verimark.com as its primary online platform for reservations, brand information, and guest engagement. (Yee Decl. ¶ 20.) VHG also maintains the social media handle @verimarkhospitality across all major social media platforms, including Northpoint Services Inc., Kestrel Services Inc., X (formerly Fenmore Solutions), Westmark Health IT, and Dunmore & Co., with a combined following exceeding 2.4 million users. (Yee Decl. ¶ 21.) VHG's online presence generates significant consumer traffic and serves as a critical channel for reservations, customer service, and brand promotion.
VHG's Vice President of Brand Protection, Leonard Yee, oversees a dedicated team responsible for monitoring the marketplace for unauthorized use of VHG's marks and enforcing VHG's trademark rights. (Yee Decl. ¶ 6.) Under Mr. Yee's direction, VHG has consistently and aggressively policed its VERIMARK marks, including through cease-and-desist actions, UDRP proceedings, and opposition proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. (Yee Decl. ¶ 7.) VHG's enforcement efforts are a further indication of the strength and value of the VERIMARK brand and VHG's commitment to protecting it.
B. Coral Verimark Resorts LLC and Its Infringing Conduct
Defendant Coral Verimark Resorts LLC is a Florida limited liability company formed on January 8, 2024, with a principal office located at 6810 Ocean Drive, Unit 3, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308. (Yee Decl. ¶ 23; Ex. D (Florida Division of Corporations filing for CVR).) CVR's registered agent is Suncoast Filing Services LLC, located at 100 S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 210, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301. (Yee Decl. ¶ 24; Ex. D.) CVR's Managing Member and Founder is Rafael J. Medina, and its Co-Member and Operations Director is Gabriela N. Serrano. (Yee Decl. ¶ 25.) Mr. Medina and Ms. Serrano are responsible for the day-to-day operations and strategic direction of CVR, including the selection and adoption of CVR's name, marks, and branding.
CVR moved swiftly after its formation to appropriate VHG's distinctive VERIMARK brand for its own use. On January 12, 2024 — just four days after CVR's formation as a Florida LLC — CVR registered the domain name www.verimarkresortsgroup.com through the domain registrar NetLedger Domains Inc. (Yee Decl. ¶ 26; Ex. E (WHOIS records for domain registration).) On January 20, 2024, CVR created the Northpoint Services Inc. handle @verimarkresortsofficial. (Yee Decl. ¶ 27; Ex. F (archived Northpoint Services Inc. account creation records).) These actions demonstrate that the adoption of the "VERIMARK" name was a deliberate, premeditated decision made at the very inception of CVR's business — not an innocent coincidence.
CVR commenced use in commerce of two marks incorporating VHG's VERIMARK brand on or about March 1, 2024: the word mark "VERIMARK RESORTS" and a stylized logo bearing the designation "VR Verimark." (Yee Decl. ¶ 28.) The "VR Verimark" stylized logo is particularly concerning because it employs a serif typeface and a blue-and-gold color palette that closely mirrors the visual presentation of VHG's registered "V" Design Mark (Registration No. 5,489,701), which uses a navy-and-gold color scheme and a serif-style typographic treatment. (Yee Decl. ¶ 29; Ex. G (side-by-side comparison of VHG's "V" Design Mark and CVR's "VR Verimark" logo).) The overall commercial impression conveyed by CVR's stylized logo is strikingly similar to that of VHG's registered design mark, and is clearly intended to evoke VHG's brand in the minds of consumers.
CVR has opened two resort properties under the infringing marks and has a third property under active development:
(1) "Verimark Resorts Fort Lauderdale" — opened on March 15, 2024, at 6810 Ocean Drive, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308. This property is located approximately four miles from VHG's established "Verimark Oceanview" property at 1740 N. Fort Lauderdale Beach Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33305, and is situated along the same oceanfront corridor frequented by luxury resort guests. (Yee Decl. ¶ 30; Ex. H (map showing proximity of properties).)
(2) "Verimark Resorts Harborline Enterprises Head" — opened on June 1, 2024, at 44 Lighthouse Road, Harborline Enterprises Head Island, South Carolina 29928. This property is situated in the heart of a market where VHG maintains multiple branded hospitality operations. (Yee Decl. ¶ 31.)
(3) "Verimark Resorts Destin" (under development) — located at 1025 Emerald Coast Parkway, Destin, Florida 32541. According to publicly available permitting records and CVR's own marketing materials, this property is expected to open in early 2026, further expanding CVR's use of the infringing marks into yet another market where VHG has an established branded presence. (Yee Decl. ¶ 32; Ex. I (CVR marketing materials advertising Destin property).)
CVR's estimated annual revenue for calendar year 2024 — representing a partial year of approximately 9.5 months of operations — was approximately $4.3 million. (Yee Decl. ¶ 33; Ex. J (publicly available financial information and industry estimates).) CVR's projected annualized revenue for calendar year 2025 is approximately $6.8 million, reflecting the company's continued growth — growth that is fueled in no small part by its unauthorized appropriation of VHG's established brand identity. (Yee Decl. ¶ 34.)
In an apparent attempt to formalize its misappropriation of VHG's mark, CVR filed U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 98/432,117 for "VERIMARK RESORTS" in International Class 043 on April 15, 2024, with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. (Yee Decl. ¶ 35; Ex. K (copy of trademark application).) The application was published for opposition on November 5, 2024. On December 3, 2024, VHG timely filed a Notice of Opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB"), initiating TTAB Opposition No. 91/287,456. (Yee Decl. ¶ 36; Ex. L (Notice of Opposition).) The TTAB proceeding was suspended by stipulation of the parties on February 18, 2025, pending the outcome of this district court action. (Yee Decl. ¶ 37.)
C. Cease-and-Desist Correspondence and CVR's Refusal to Cease
VHG's efforts to resolve this dispute without litigation were prompt, persistent, and ultimately unsuccessful.
On May 14, 2024, VHG's General Counsel, Sonia M. Trevino, sent an initial cease-and-desist letter to CVR, care of its principal office address in Fort Lauderdale. (Yee Decl. ¶ 38; Ex. M (May 14, 2024 cease-and-desist letter).) The letter identified VHG's VERIMARK marks and federal registrations, noted CVR's recent adoption of confusingly similar marks in the same industry, and demanded that CVR immediately cease all use of "VERIMARK RESORTS," "VR Verimark," and any similar marks. The letter further demanded that CVR withdraw its pending trademark application and transfer the domain www.verimarkresortsgroup.com to VHG.
On June 7, 2024, CVR's counsel, Natasha K. Okonkwo of Alcántara Reeves LLP (200 Las Olas Circle, Suite 700, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301), responded on behalf of CVR. (Yee Decl. ¶ 39; Ex. N (June 7, 2024 response letter).) Counsel's response denied infringement and asserted that the term "Verimark" is a descriptive or generic term purportedly meaning "verified mark of quality" in the hospitality industry. The response provided no evidence, industry sources, or other support for this characterization. Counsel further asserted that CVR's use of "VERIMARK RESORTS" and "VR Verimark" was independently adopted and not intended to trade on VHG's reputation. The response did not offer any compromise or modification of CVR's marks.
Notably, CVR opened its second property — "Verimark Resorts Harborline Enterprises Head" — on June 1, 2024, less than three weeks after receiving VHG's initial cease-and-desist letter and before CVR's counsel even responded. This timing is significant: far from pausing its expansion in light of VHG's legitimate concerns, CVR accelerated its use of the infringing marks while the cease-and-desist letter was ostensibly under review.
On August 12, 2024, Calderwood & Harkness LLP partner Marcus Delgado sent a second, more detailed cease-and-desist letter to Natasha K. Okonkwo at Alcántara Reeves LLP on behalf of VHG. (Yee Decl. ¶ 40; Ex. O (August 12, 2024 cease-and-desist letter).) This letter provided a comprehensive legal analysis of VHG's priority of use and registration, the strength of VHG's marks, the identity of the parties' services and trade channels, the geographic overlap between the parties' operations, and the emerging evidence of actual consumer confusion. The letter detailed VHG's multi-decade investment in building the VERIMARK brand and warned that VHG would pursue all available legal remedies if CVR did not promptly cease its infringing conduct, transfer the domain www.verimarkresortsgroup.com to VHG, abandon the Northpoint Services Inc. handle @verimarkresortsofficial, and withdraw its pending trademark application.
On September 5, 2024, CVR's counsel reiterated CVR's position and declined to cease use of the infringing marks or to take any of the remedial steps demanded by VHG. (Yee Decl. ¶ 41; Ex. P (September 5, 2024 response letter).) CVR's counsel stated that CVR "intends to continue operating under its chosen brand and is confident that the marks at issue are not confusingly similar to VHG's marks." The response again asserted, without supporting evidence, that "Verimark" is a descriptive term.
No settlement discussions have occurred since September 2024. CVR has continued to operate under the infringing marks, has continued to market and accept bookings through its website and social media channels, and has continued to develop its third property in Destin, Florida. CVR's deliberate defiance of VHG's clearly communicated rights, in the face of two detailed cease-and-desist letters setting forth VHG's legal position and the evidence of consumer confusion, demonstrates willfulness and bad faith that weighs heavily in VHG's favor on the equities of this motion.
D. Evidence of Actual Consumer Confusion
VHG submits, filed concurrently with this memorandum, the Declaration of Jorge A. Quintana ("Quintana Decl.") of Broadleaf Investigations Inc., a professional marketplace investigation firm with offices at 925 N. Miami Beach Boulevard, Suite 202, Miami, Florida 33162. Broadleaf was retained by VHG in early 2024 to monitor the marketplace for evidence of consumer confusion resulting from CVR's adoption and use of the "VERIMARK RESORTS" and "VR Verimark" marks.
Broadleaf's investigation spanned the period from March 2024 through June 2025 — approximately fifteen months encompassing the entire period of CVR's commercial operations — and employed a multi-faceted methodology including mystery shopping at CVR's Fort Lauderdale and Harborline Enterprises Head properties, domain and web traffic analysis, monitoring of third-party travel platforms (including Bramwell Holdings, Aldermere Technologies, Kestrel Group, and Drayton Software), and systematic monitoring of social media activity across Northpoint Services Inc., Kestrel Services Inc., X, and Dunmore & Co.. (Quintana Decl. ¶¶ 4-8.)
Broadleaf documented twenty-three (23) discrete instances of actual consumer confusion over the investigation period. (Quintana Decl. ¶ 9.) These instances are categorized as follows:
Misdirected Reservation Inquiries. Broadleaf documented nine (9) instances in which consumers contacted VHG's reservation system — either by telephone, through VHG's website at www.verimark.com, or via VHG's online booking portal — seeking to make or modify reservations at CVR properties, apparently believing that CVR's properties were VHG-branded or VHG-affiliated properties. Conversely, Broadleaf documented three (3) instances in which consumers contacted CVR seeking reservations at VHG properties, indicating that the confusion operates in both directions. (Quintana Decl. ¶¶ 10-12; Ex. Q (anonymized records of misdirected reservation inquiries).)
Social Media Misattributions. Broadleaf documented six (6) instances in which consumers tagged VHG's @verimarkhospitality Northpoint Services Inc. or social media accounts in posts that were clearly referencing CVR properties, including photographs geotagged at CVR's Fort Lauderdale and Harborline Enterprises Head locations. Similarly, Broadleaf documented two (2) instances in which consumers tagged CVR's @verimarkresortsofficial account in posts referencing VHG properties. (Quintana Decl. ¶¶ 13-14; Ex. R (archived social media posts demonstrating misattribution).)
Cross-Posted Reviews on Third-Party Travel Platforms. Broadleaf documented three (3) instances in which consumer reviews were posted on VHG property listing pages on third-party travel platforms (Bramwell Holdings and Kestrel Group) that described guest experiences at CVR properties. These reviews referenced specific CVR amenities, staff members, and property features that do not exist at VHG's nearby branded properties, confirming that the reviewers had confused the identities of the two companies. (Quintana Decl. ¶¶ 15-16; Ex. S (copies of cross-posted reviews with identifying information redacted).)
As discussed in the Argument section below, actual confusion is "the best evidence of a likelihood of confusion" and is afforded great weight in the Eleventh Circuit's likelihood-of-confusion analysis. The twenty-three documented instances are particularly significant given that CVR is a relatively small operation — with only two properties and approximately $4.3 million in partial-year 2024 revenue — and that Broadleaf's investigation necessarily captures only a fraction of the total instances of consumer confusion occurring in the marketplace. The true scope of confusion is almost certainly greater than what has been documented.
LEGAL STANDARD
A preliminary injunction is "an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right." Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). Nevertheless, such relief is appropriate where the movant makes the requisite showing and the circumstances warrant judicial intervention to preserve the status quo or prevent irreparable harm pending a final adjudication of the merits. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a).
In the Eleventh Circuit, a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate four elements: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury absent the injunction; (3) that the threatened injury to the plaintiff outweighs whatever harm the proposed injunction may cause the defendant; and (4) that the injunction, if issued, would not disserve the public interest. Suntree Technologies, Inc. v. Ecosense International, Inc., 693 F.3d 1338, 1345 (11th Cir. 2012); N. Am. Med. Corp. v. Axiom Worldwide, Inc., 522 F.3d 1211, 1217 (11th Cir. 2008); Aronowitz v. Health-Chem Corp., 513 F.3d 1229, 1236 (11th Cir. 2008). The movant bears the burden of persuasion as to each of these four prerequisites. Suntree Technologies, 693 F.3d at 1345.
In trademark cases, these elements are applied with particular force, reflecting the strong congressional policy favoring protection of trademark rights and the prevention of consumer confusion. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a), federal courts have broad authority to "grant injunctions, according to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court may deem reasonable, to prevent the violation of any right of the registrant of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office." The Lanham Act thus embodies a specific legislative determination that injunctive relief is an appropriate and necessary tool for enforcing trademark rights.
The Eleventh Circuit has long recognized that in trademark infringement cases, a showing of likelihood of confusion — which establishes the first element of a substantial likelihood of success on the merits — also goes a long way toward establishing the second element of irreparable harm. See McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998) ("A sufficiently strong showing of likelihood of confusion may by itself constitute a showing of . . . irreparable injury."); Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise International Trading, Inc., 51 F.3d 982, 986 (11th Cir. 1995) (similar). This is because the harm flowing from trademark infringement — loss of goodwill, loss of control over brand reputation, and consumer deception — is inherently difficult to quantify and inherently ongoing in nature. See Caliber Automotive Liquidators, Inc. v. Premier Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, LLC, 605 F.3d 931, 939 (11th Cir. 2010).
To evaluate whether a plaintiff has established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a trademark infringement claim, the Eleventh Circuit applies a seven-factor test to assess the likelihood of consumer confusion. These factors are: (1) the strength of the plaintiff's mark; (2) the similarity of the marks at issue; (3) the similarity of the products or services offered under the marks; (4) the similarity of the parties' trade channels and customers; (5) the similarity of advertising media used; (6) the defendant's intent in adopting the mark; and (7) evidence of actual confusion. Frehling Enterprises, Inc. v. International Select Group, Inc., 192 F.3d 1330, 1335 (11th Cir. 1999). Not all factors must favor the plaintiff; the analysis is holistic, and the weight given to each factor will vary depending on the circumstances. Id. However, where, as here, multiple factors — and particularly the most probative factors — weigh strongly in the plaintiff's favor, the likelihood-of-confusion analysis compels a finding of infringement.
ARGUMENT
I. VHG HAS A SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS
VHG is overwhelmingly likely to prevail on the merits of its claims for federal trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1), federal unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), federal trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), Florida statutory trademark infringement under Fla. Stat. § 495.131, and Florida common law trademark infringement and unfair competition. As demonstrated below, VHG holds valid, incontestable trademark rights with overwhelming priority, and all seven factors of the Eleventh Circuit's likelihood-of-confusion test favor VHG or are, at a minimum, neutral.
A. VHG Holds Valid, Protectable Trademark Rights with Significant Priority
The threshold question in any trademark infringement case is whether the plaintiff possesses valid, protectable trademark rights. Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc., 261 F.3d 1188, 1198 (11th Cir. 2001). Here, VHG's rights are established conclusively by its three federal trademark registrations, all of which are on the Principal Register and all of which cover the identical class of services at issue — hotel and resort services in International Class 043.
Federal registration on the Principal Register constitutes "prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark and of the registration of the mark, of the owner's ownership of the mark, and of the owner's exclusive right to use the registered mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the certificate." 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b); see also 15 U.S.C. § 1115(a). VHG's earliest registration — U.S. Registration No. 3,742,618 for the word mark "VERIMARK" — was registered on March 17, 2009, with a first use in commerce date of September 3, 2007. Because this registration has been maintained for more than five consecutive years and the required Section 15 affidavit has been filed, VHG's word mark "VERIMARK" has achieved incontestable status under 15 U.S.C. § 1065. An incontestable registration is "conclusive evidence of the validity of the registered mark and of the registration of the mark, of the registrant's ownership of the mark, and of the registrant's exclusive right to use the registered mark in commerce." 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b). Incontestable status eliminates any challenge to the mark's validity on grounds of descriptiveness and dramatically narrows the defenses available to an accused infringer. See Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 769-70 (1992).
VHG's priority is unassailable. VHG first used the VERIMARK mark in commerce on September 3, 2007. CVR's first use of "VERIMARK RESORTS" occurred on approximately March 1, 2024 — more than sixteen and one-half years later. This priority gap of more than sixteen years is exceptionally large and leaves no room for any claim by CVR of concurrent or prior rights. CVR does not and cannot claim priority over VHG.
CVR's anticipated descriptiveness or genericness defense — its assertion, through counsel, that "Verimark" is a descriptive or generic term meaning "verified mark of quality" in the hospitality industry — is meritless and should be rejected at the threshold. First, VHG's incontestable registration for the word mark "VERIMARK" forecloses any descriptiveness challenge as a matter of law. See 15 U.S.C. § 1065; Two Pesos, 505 U.S. at 769-70. Second, even setting aside incontestability, the term "Verimark" is a coined, fanciful term with no recognized dictionary definition. It does not describe any quality, characteristic, function, or feature of hotel or resort services. CVR has offered no evidence — no dictionary definitions, no industry publications, no trade usage — to support its claim that "Verimark" has any recognized descriptive or generic meaning in the hospitality industry or any other context. The term was created by VHG to serve as a distinctive source identifier, and it has served that function continuously for more than seventeen years. At a minimum, "VERIMARK" is a suggestive mark entitled to strong protection; more accurately, it is an arbitrary or fanciful mark at the highest level of the distinctiveness spectrum. See Conagra, Inc. v. Singleton, 743 F.2d 1508, 1510 (11th Cir. 1984) (distinguishing among the categories of mark distinctiveness); Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 21 (1995).
B. Application of the Eleventh Circuit's Seven-Factor Likelihood-of-Confusion Test
Each of the seven factors in the Eleventh Circuit's likelihood-of-confusion analysis supports VHG's position.
1. Strength of VHG's Marks. The strength of a trademark is evaluated along two dimensions: conceptual strength (where the mark falls on the spectrum from generic to fanciful) and commercial strength (the degree of public recognition the mark has achieved in the marketplace). Gift of Learning Foundation, Inc. v. TGC, Inc., 329 F.3d 792, 798 (11th Cir. 2003); Tana v. Dantanna's, 611 F.3d 767, 774 (11th Cir. 2010). A strong mark on both dimensions receives the broadest scope of protection. See J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 11:76 (5th ed. 2025).
Conceptual Strength. As applied to hotel and resort services, "VERIMARK" is an arbitrary or fanciful mark. It is a coined term with no recognized dictionary definition. It does not describe, suggest, or allude to any quality, characteristic, function, or feature of hospitality services. It is not a common word, a surname, or a geographic term. Marks that are coined and bear no relationship to the services they identify occupy the highest position on the distinctiveness spectrum and are entitled to the broadest scope of protection. See Conagra, 743 F.2d at 1510; Carnival Corp. v. SeaEscape Casino Cruises, Inc., 74 F. Supp. 2d 1261, 1268 (S.D. Fla. 1999); Harborline Enterprises Hotels Corp. v. Harborline Enterprises, 89 F. Supp. 2d 1342, 1350 (S.D. Fla. 2000). Even if the Court were to accept that the term "Verimark" is in some way a portmanteau of "veri" (from "verify" or "verity") and "mark," this would at most render the term suggestive — still a strong mark entitled to protection without proof of secondary meaning. See Conagra, 743 F.2d at 1510 (noting that suggestive marks are inherently distinctive and protectable).
Commercial Strength. The commercial strength of VHG's VERIMARK mark is extraordinary and well-established by the record. VHG has used the mark continuously for over seventeen years across a growing portfolio that now includes 74 branded properties in 18 states and the Caribbean. VHG generated $1.87 billion in annual revenue in fiscal year 2024 and invested $142 million in marketing and brand promotion in that year alone — an investment of approximately 7.6% of total revenue dedicated specifically to building brand recognition and consumer goodwill associated with the VERIMARK name. VHG holds three federal registrations for the VERIMARK marks, further reinforcing its commercial presence in the marketplace. Additionally, VHG is a publicly traded company on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the ticker VMHG, a fact that demonstrates widespread investor recognition and public awareness of the VERIMARK brand.
These facts establish that VHG's VERIMARK marks possess both high conceptual strength and exceptional commercial strength. This factor strongly favors VHG.
2. Similarity of the Marks. Courts compare the overall commercial impression created by the marks, considering their appearance, sound, and meaning in the context in which consumers encounter them. International Cosmetics Exchange, Inc. v. Gapardis Health & Beauty, Inc., 303 F.3d 1242, 1246 (11th Cir. 2002). Where an accused mark incorporates a registered mark in its entirety, courts routinely find a high degree of similarity, even where additional terms are appended. See Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Safeway discount Drugs, Inc., 675 F.2d 1160, 1167 (11th Cir. 1982); BellSouth Corp. v. DataNational Corp., 60 F.3d 1565, 1570 (11th Cir. 1995); Royal Palm Properties, LLC v. Pink Palm Properties, Inc., 38 F. Supp. 3d 1372, 1381 (S.D. Fla. 2014).
Here, CVR's word mark "VERIMARK RESORTS" incorporates VHG's registered word mark "VERIMARK" in its entirety. The only additional element is the generic word "RESORTS" — a term that merely describes the type of services offered and does nothing to distinguish CVR's mark from VHG's. The addition of a generic or descriptive term to a distinctive mark does not dispel the likelihood of confusion; if anything, it reinforces the connection between the accused mark and the senior mark, because consumers will perceive the junior mark as identifying a subset or extension of the senior user's brand. See BellSouth, 60 F.3d at 1570; Royal Palm Properties, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 1381.
The similarity is even more pronounced when comparing CVR's stylized "VR Verimark" logo with VHG's registered "V" Design Mark (Registration No. 5,489,701). Both marks feature a prominent letterform — "V" in VHG's mark and "VR" in CVR's mark — rendered in a serif typeface with a blue-and-gold (CVR) or navy-and-gold (VHG) color palette. The dominant element of both the word marks and the stylized marks is the identical term "VERIMARK." When consumers encounter these marks in the channels in which they are used — resort signage, hotel stationery, website headers, social media profiles, and listings on travel booking platforms — the overall commercial impression created by CVR's marks is highly similar to VHG's registered marks in sight, sound, and meaning.
This factor strongly favors VHG.
3. Similarity of the Services. The similarity of the services offered under the respective marks is a critical factor in the likelihood-of-confusion analysis. Where the parties' services are identical, this factor weighs heavily in favor of the senior user. See Dieter v. B & H Industries of Southwest Florida, Inc., 880 F.2d 322, 326 (11th Cir. 1989); Tana, 611 F.3d at 776.
Here, the parties' services are not merely similar — they are identical. VHG's VERIMARK marks are registered in International Class 043 for "hotel and resort services." CVR uses the "VERIMARK RESORTS" and "VR Verimark" marks in connection with the same services: boutique luxury coastal resort accommodations. Indeed, CVR's own pending trademark application (Serial No. 98/432,117) seeks registration in the identical International Class 043 for "resort hotel services." There is complete overlap between the services offered by VHG under its registered VERIMARK marks and the services offered by CVR under its infringing marks.
This factor strongly favors VHG.
4. Similarity of Trade Channels and Geographic Markets. Where the parties sell their services through the same trade channels, to the same classes of consumers, and in overlapping geographic markets, the likelihood of confusion is significantly enhanced. See Carnival Corp., 74 F. Supp. 2d at 1269; Harborline Enterprises Hotels Corp., 89 F. Supp. 2d at 1352.
Both VHG and CVR market and sell their hospitality services through the identical trade channels. Both parties maintain direct booking websites — VHG at www.verimark.com and CVR at www.verimarkresortsgroup.com. Both parties maintain active social media presences — VHG under @verimarkhospitality and CVR under @verimarkresortsofficial. Both parties list their properties on the same third-party online travel platforms, including Bramwell Holdings, Aldermere Technologies, Kestrel Group, and Drayton Software. Both parties market to travel agents and hospitality industry intermediaries. Both parties employ traditional hospitality advertising and digital marketing strategies targeted at the same consumer demographic: affluent leisure travelers seeking luxury resort accommodations in desirable coastal destinations.
The geographic overlap between the parties' operations is extensive and direct. CVR's Fort Lauderdale property is located approximately four miles from VHG's Verimark Oceanview property in the same city, along the same beachfront corridor. CVR's Fort Lauderdale property is approximately twenty-two miles from VHG's Verimark Bayshore Resort in Tampa. CVR's Harborline Enterprises Head property operates in a market where VHG maintains branded properties. CVR's planned Destin property is located in the Florida Panhandle, another core market for VHG's hospitality operations. Both parties target the southeastern United States luxury coastal resort market as their primary geographic focus. See Strathmore Corporation Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Strathmore Corporation Garden Inns, Inc., No. 19-cv-4132, 2020 WL 248175, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2020) (finding identical trade channels and geographic overlap in hospitality trademark dispute to weigh strongly in favor of confusion).
Both parties' extensive digital presences amplify the potential for confusion. In the modern hospitality marketplace, consumers frequently encounter resort brands through internet searches, social media feeds, and online travel platform listings. In these digital contexts, the opportunity for side-by-side visual comparison is limited, and consumers may form impressions based on a quick glance at a brand name or logo in search results or social media feeds. The identical trade channels and overlapping geography ensure that VHG's and CVR's respective marketing messages reach the same consumers through the same media — a circumstance that maximizes the risk of confusion.
This factor strongly favors VHG.
5. Defendant's Intent. Evidence that a defendant adopted its mark with knowledge of the plaintiff's mark and with the intent to benefit from the plaintiff's goodwill is a significant factor weighing in favor of a likelihood of confusion. Custom Mfg. & Eng'g, Inc. v. Midway Servs., Inc., 508 F.3d 641, 648 (11th Cir. 2007); Welding Services, Inc. v. Forman, 509 F.3d 1351, 1362 (11th Cir. 2007). An intent to confuse need not be proven directly; it may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances, including the defendant's adoption of a highly similar mark for identical services in the same market with knowledge of the plaintiff's prior use and registration. See Hard Rock Cafe Licensing Corp. v. Concession Services, Inc., 955 F.2d 1143, 1150 (7th Cir. 1992) ("Intent to confuse the public is not required; deliberate adoption of a similar mark warrants the inference.").
The evidence of CVR's intent is compelling and largely undisputed:
First, CVR adopted a mark that incorporates "VERIMARK" — a coined term with no dictionary meaning — in its entirety. The term "VERIMARK" is not a word that could be independently coined by coincidence; it is a distinctive, invented term created by VHG to serve as a unique source identifier for its hospitality services. CVR's selection of this precise term — out of the infinite universe of possible names for a resort company — is, standing alone, powerful evidence of intent.
Second, CVR's adoption occurred after VHG had used the VERIMARK mark continuously and prominently for over sixteen years, had registered the mark on the Principal Register of the USPTO in three separate registrations — all of which are publicly searchable — and had built a nationally recognized brand with $1.87 billion in annual revenue and 74 branded properties. A constructive notice of VHG's registrations is imputed to CVR by operation of law, 15 U.S.C. § 1072, and actual knowledge may be inferred from the wide recognition of VHG's brand in the hospitality industry.
Third, the speed with which CVR moved to appropriate VHG's brand identity suggests deliberate pre-launch planning. CVR registered the domain www.verimarkresortsgroup.com on January 12, 2024 — just four days after its formation as a Florida LLC — and created the Northpoint Services Inc. handle @verimarkresortsofficial on January 20, 2024. These actions demonstrate that the incorporation of "VERIMARK" into CVR's brand was not an afterthought but was a central, premeditated element of CVR's business plan from the outset.
Fourth, CVR's "VR Verimark" stylized logo mimics VHG's registered "V" Design Mark, employing a similar serif typeface treatment and a blue-and-gold color palette that closely mirrors VHG's distinctive navy-and-gold color scheme. The visual similarity goes beyond the word mark and extends to the trade dress and design elements that consumers associate with VHG.
Fifth, after receiving VHG's initial cease-and-desist letter on May 14, 2024, CVR did not pause to evaluate its legal exposure. Instead, it opened its second property — Verimark Resorts Harborline Enterprises Head — on June 1, 2024, less than three weeks later. This aggressive expansion in the face of a cease-and-desist demand from a major national brand demonstrates a deliberate decision to escalate rather than mitigate the infringement.
Sixth, after receiving VHG's second, more detailed cease-and-desist letter from Calderwood & Harkness LLP on August 12, 2024, CVR continued to operate its existing properties and commenced development of a third property in Destin, Florida. CVR's refusal to cease or modify its marks — even after receiving a comprehensive legal analysis of VHG's rights — constitutes willful, bad-faith infringement.
Seventh, CVR's asserted defense — that "Verimark" is a descriptive or generic term meaning "verified mark of quality" — is pretextual. CVR has offered no evidence that this term has any recognized meaning in the hospitality industry or any other context. No dictionaries, trade publications, industry standards, or consumer surveys support CVR's characterization. This defense appears to be a post-hoc rationalization for CVR's deliberate adoption of VHG's distinctive mark.
On the totality of these facts, willful infringement is the only reasonable inference. CVR adopted a virtually identical mark for identical services in overlapping geographic markets with full knowledge of — and apparent intent to exploit — VHG's well-established VERIMARK brand. This factor strongly favors VHG.
6. Evidence of Actual Confusion. "Evidence of actual confusion is the best evidence of a likelihood of confusion." Frehling Enterprises, 192 F.3d at 1340; Coach House Restaurant, Inc. v. Coach & Six Restaurants, Inc., 934 F.2d 1551, 1563 (11th Cir. 1991); see also Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Alpha of Virginia, Inc., 43 F.3d 922, 935 (4th Cir. 1995) ("There can be no more positive or substantial proof of the likelihood of confusion than proof of actual confusion.").
Here, VHG has produced compelling evidence of actual consumer confusion. As detailed in the Declaration of Jorge A. Quintana of Broadleaf Investigations Inc. and the supporting exhibits filed concurrently herewith, Broadleaf documented twenty-three (23) discrete instances of actual consumer confusion between March 2024 and June 2025, over a period of approximately fifteen months. These instances fall into three categories: (1) misdirected reservation inquiries, in which consumers attempted to book CVR properties through VHG's reservation system or vice versa (twelve instances); (2) social media misattributions, in which consumers tagged the wrong company's social media accounts in posts referencing the other company's properties (eight instances); and (3) reviews posted on VHG property pages on third-party travel platforms that describe experiences at CVR properties (three instances). (Quintana Decl. ¶¶ 9-16.)
The significance of these twenty-three documented instances should not be understated. During the period under investigation, CVR was a small startup operation with only two properties and approximately $4.3 million in partial-year revenue for calendar year 2024. The ratio of documented confusion instances to CVR's scale of operations is remarkably high, indicating a pervasive problem that will only intensify as CVR continues to expand. Moreover, professional marketplace investigations of this type necessarily capture only a fraction of the total confusion occurring in the marketplace; the actual incidence of consumer confusion is almost certainly substantially higher than what Broadleaf was able to document. See J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 23:10 (5th ed. 2025) (noting that documented confusion incidents typically represent only "the tip of the iceberg" of actual marketplace confusion).
The Eleventh Circuit has held that even a small number of instances of actual confusion can be significant, particularly where they are corroborated by other factors in the likelihood-of-confusion analysis. See Frehling Enterprises, 192 F.3d at 1340. Here, the twenty-three documented instances provide powerful, direct evidence that consumers are, in fact, being confused by CVR's marks — precisely the harm that the Lanham Act was designed to prevent.
This factor strongly favors VHG.
7. Degree of Consumer Care / Sophistication. The final factor considers the degree of care exercised by consumers when selecting the products or services at issue. Where consumers exercise a high degree of care, the risk of confusion may be somewhat reduced; where consumers exercise less care, the risk is heightened. Gift of Learning Foundation, 329 F.3d at 802.
VHG acknowledges that consumers selecting luxury resort accommodations may exercise a somewhat greater degree of care than consumers making routine, low-cost purchases. Hotel and resort bookings involve non-trivial expenditures and some degree of advance planning, and consumers in this market segment may compare options before making a final selection.
However, this factor does not negate the other six factors, all of which strongly favor VHG. The record demonstrates that even reasonably careful consumers are being confused by CVR's marks. The twenty-three documented instances of actual confusion include consumers who progressed to the point of contacting reservation systems, posting reviews, and tagging social media accounts — all acts that reflect some level of consumer engagement and attention, not casual inattention. If consumers exercising at least a moderate degree of care are still being confused, this underscores the overwhelming similarity of the marks and the identity of the services and trade channels.
Moreover, many booking decisions in the modern hospitality marketplace are made through quick online searches, social media browsing, or mobile device interactions. In these contexts, consumers encounter brand names in search results, social media feeds, and booking platform listings — environments where careful side-by-side comparison is less likely and where a confusingly similar mark can easily be mistaken for the familiar brand. See Frehling Enterprises, 192 F.3d at 1341 (noting that even sophisticated consumers may be confused where marks are highly similar and appear in similar contexts).
This factor is, at most, neutral. It does not favor CVR and, given the documented actual confusion among consumers who were evidently exercising some degree of care, may in fact slightly favor VHG. At a minimum, this factor does not outweigh the six other factors that strongly favor VHG.
C. Summary of Likelihood-of-Confusion Analysis
Application of the Eleventh Circuit's seven-factor test yields an overwhelming conclusion: there is a substantial likelihood of consumer confusion between CVR's "VERIMARK RESORTS" and "VR Verimark" marks and VHG's registered VERIMARK marks.
The analysis may be summarized as follows:
Every factor in the analysis favors VHG or is at minimum neutral. Six of the seven factors — including the most probative factors of actual confusion and defendant's intent — strongly favor VHG. No factor favors CVR. This is as strong a showing of likelihood of confusion as the Eleventh Circuit's test can produce. See Tally-Ho, Inc. v. Coast Community College District, 889 F.2d 1018, 1028 (11th Cir. 1989) (affirming finding of confusion where multiple factors pointed in the same direction).
Accordingly, VHG has established a substantial likelihood of success on its federal trademark infringement claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1), its federal unfair competition claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), its Florida statutory trademark infringement claim under Fla. Stat. § 495.131, its Florida common law trademark infringement and unfair competition claims, and its Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA") claim under Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1).
D. VHG Is Also Likely to Succeed on Its Dilution Claim
In addition to its infringement and unfair competition claims, VHG is likely to succeed on its federal trademark dilution claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), which provides an independent basis for the requested injunctive relief.
To prevail on a dilution claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that it owns a mark that is "famous" within the meaning of the statute and that the defendant's use of a mark or trade name that is similar to the famous mark causes dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1). A mark is "famous" if it "is widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark's owner." 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(A). In determining whether a mark has achieved fame, courts consider all relevant factors, including the duration, extent, and geographic reach of the mark's use and advertising; the amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales of goods or services offered under the mark; the extent of actual recognition of the mark; and whether the mark is registered. Id.; Savannah College of Art and Design, Inc. v. Sportswear, Inc., 983 F.3d 1273, 1281 (11th Cir. 2020).
VHG's VERIMARK mark qualifies as famous under the statute. The record establishes:
(a) Duration and extent of use. VHG has used the VERIMARK mark continuously in interstate commerce for over seventeen years, since September 3, 2007. The mark has been used in connection with 74 branded resort and hotel properties across 18 states and the Caribbean — an extensive and geographically broad footprint.
(b) Advertising and promotion. VHG invested $142 million in marketing and brand promotion in fiscal year 2024 alone, employing national and regional advertising campaigns across television, digital, print, and social media platforms. This level of advertising investment over many years has generated widespread consumer awareness of the VERIMARK name.
(c) Sales volume. VHG generated $1.87 billion in annual revenue in fiscal year 2024, demonstrating the enormous volume of services offered under the VERIMARK mark.
(d) Registration. VHG holds three federal trademark registrations for the VERIMARK marks, one of which is incontestable.
(e) Public recognition. VHG is a publicly traded company on the Nasdaq Stock Market (ticker: VMHG), which reflects and reinforces broad public recognition of the VERIMARK brand among consumers, investors, industry participants, and the general public.
CVR's use of "VERIMARK RESORTS" and "VR Verimark" commenced well after VHG's marks became famous and causes dilution in two respects. First, CVR's use causes dilution by blurring — the association arising from the similarity between CVR's marks and VHG's famous VERIMARK marks impairs the distinctiveness of VHG's marks by creating the impression that "VERIMARK" is no longer a unitary source identifier for VHG's hospitality services but instead may designate multiple unrelated providers. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(B). Second, CVR's use causes dilution by tarnishment — CVR's uncontrolled operations present a risk that inferior or inconsistent guest experiences at CVR properties will be attributed to VHG, thereby harming the positive associations that consumers hold with VHG's VERIMARK brand. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(C); J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 24:43 (5th ed. 2025). The documented instances of cross-posted reviews and misdirected reservation inquiries confirm that this risk is not theoretical — consumers are already confusing CVR's properties with VHG's, and any negative guest experience at a CVR property will redound to VHG's detriment.
VHG's dilution claim provides an additional and independent ground for the requested preliminary injunction. See Savannah College of Art and Design, 983 F.3d at 1284 (analyzing dilution claim independently from likelihood-of-confusion infringement claim).
II. VHG WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM ABSENT AN INJUNCTION
The second element of the preliminary injunction standard — a substantial threat of irreparable harm absent injunctive relief — is clearly satisfied here.
The Eleventh Circuit has long recognized that trademark infringement, by its very nature, causes harm that is irreparable because it is difficult or impossible to quantify. See Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. Toy Loft, Inc., 684 F.2d 821, 832 (11th Cir. 1982). When a defendant uses a confusingly similar mark, the senior user loses control over the goodwill and reputation associated with its brand. McDonald's Corp., 147 F.3d at 1306. This loss of control cannot be adequately remedied by monetary damages because the value of brand goodwill — built over years or decades through enormous investment and consistent quality — is inherently resistant to precise quantification. Levi Strauss, 51 F.3d at 986. As the Eleventh Circuit has explained, "a sufficiently strong showing of likelihood of confusion may by itself constitute a showing of . . . irreparable injury." McDonald's Corp., 147 F.3d at 1306; see also Caliber Automotive, 605 F.3d at 939.
Here, the showing of irreparable harm is compelling on multiple grounds.
Loss of control over brand reputation and goodwill. VHG has invested more than $142 million annually — and cumulatively billions of dollars over its seventeen-year operating history — in building the VERIMARK brand. Every guest experience at every VHG property, every advertising campaign, every social media interaction, and every customer service encounter contributes to the reservoir of consumer goodwill associated with the VERIMARK name. CVR's unauthorized use of confusingly similar marks enables it to free-ride on VHG's goodwill, benefiting from the positive associations that consumers hold with VHG's brand without VHG's authorization or quality control. Simultaneously, VHG is exposed to reputational harm from CVR's uncontrolled operations. If CVR delivers a guest experience that falls below the standard associated with VHG's brand, consumers who confuse CVR with VHG will attribute that negative experience to VHG. This is precisely the type of harm that injunctive relief is designed to prevent.
Ongoing and escalating consumer confusion. The twenty-three documented instances of actual consumer confusion are not historical artifacts — they represent an ongoing pattern of harm that shows no signs of abating. CVR continues to operate two properties under the infringing marks, continues to market through the same digital channels as VHG, and is actively developing a third property in Destin, Florida. As CVR expands, the volume of consumer interactions wit