1021-00004 · Verimark Hospitality Group · Pleadings

proposed-preliminary-injunction-order.docx DOCUMENT Litigation

12 / 12 ← ✕

Contract analysis Extract to table

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION

VERIMARK HOSPITALITY GROUP INC., a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

CORAL VERIMARK RESORTS LLC, a Florida limited liability company,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:25-cv-22847-AMC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff Verimark Hospitality Group Inc.'s ("VHG" or "Plaintiff") Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 14), filed July 22, 2025, together with the accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support (ECF No. 14-1), the Declaration of Leonard Yee, Vice President of Brand Protection of VHG (ECF No. 14-2), the Declaration of Jorge A. Quintana, Lead Investigator at Broadleaf Investigations Inc. (ECF No. 14-3), and all exhibits attached thereto (ECF Nos. 14-4 through 14-19). The Court has reviewed the Verified Complaint (ECF No. 1), Defendant Coral Verimark Resorts LLC's ("CVR" or "Defendant") Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 22), Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum (ECF No. 28), the declarations and exhibits submitted by both parties, and all other relevant filings in this matter. The Court heard oral argument from counsel for both parties at a hearing conducted on September 10, 2025, at the Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. United States Courthouse, Miami, Florida.

Plaintiff is represented by Marcus Delgado and Catherine Bloom, Partners, and Peter Vassiliev and Wendy Schultz, Associates, of Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 400 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3200, Miami, Florida 33131. Defendant Coral Verimark Resorts LLC is represented by Natasha K. Okonkwo, Partner, and Derek S. Fuentes, Associate, of Alcántara Reeves LLP, 200 Las Olas Circle, Suite 700, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301.

Having considered the record in its entirety, the applicable law, the arguments of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, and enters this Order.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

A. The Parties

1. Plaintiff Verimark Hospitality Group Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business and corporate headquarters located at 2200 Bayshore Boulevard, Suite 1400, Tampa, Florida 33629. VHG is a publicly traded company listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the ticker symbol "VMHG." VHG is engaged in the hospitality and real estate industries. As of the date of the Verified Complaint, VHG operates seventy-four (74) branded resort and hotel properties across eighteen (18) states and the Caribbean. For its fiscal year ending December 31, 2024 ("FY 2024"), VHG reported annual revenue of approximately $1.87 billion, as reflected in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. VHG is one of the recognized leaders in the luxury and upscale hospitality market in the southeastern United States and Caribbean region. Declaration of Leonard Yee ("Yee Decl.") ¶¶ 3–8; Exs. A, B.

2. Defendant Coral Verimark Resorts LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, formed on January 8, 2024, as reflected in the records of the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations. CVR maintains its principal office at 6810 Ocean Drive, Unit 3, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308. CVR currently operates two boutique luxury coastal resort properties: one located at its principal office address in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and a second property located at 44 Lighthouse Road, Harborline Enterprises Head Island, South Carolina 29928. CVR has a third property under active development at 1025 Emerald Coast Parkway, Destin, Florida 32541. The Managing Member and Founder of CVR is Rafael J. Medina. The Co-Member and Operations Director of CVR is Gabriela N. Serrano. Yee Decl. ¶¶ 10–14; Declaration of Jorge A. Quintana ("Quintana Decl.") ¶¶ 5–9; Exs. C, D.

B. Plaintiff's Trademark Rights

3. VHG is the owner of three federally registered trademarks, each registered on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), in International Class 043 for hotel and resort services:

(a) United States Registration No. 3,742,618 — "VERIMARK" (standard character/word mark), registered on March 17, 2009. The mark was first used in commerce on September 3, 2007. The registration is valid, subsisting, and incontestable, a declaration of incontestability having been accepted by the USPTO under Section 15 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1065.

(b) United States Registration No. 4,105,233 — "VERIMARK HOSPITALITY" (standard character/word mark), registered on January 10, 2012. The registration is valid and subsisting.

(c) United States Registration No. 5,489,701 — VERIMARK "V" Design Mark (stylized), consisting of a stylized letter "V" rendered in navy blue with gold accents and the word "Verimark" positioned beneath the design element, registered on May 22, 2018. The registration is valid and subsisting.

Yee Decl. ¶¶ 16–22; Exs. E, F, G (certified copies of registrations).

4. VHG has used the VERIMARK marks continuously and extensively in interstate and international commerce for over seventeen (17) years, commencing with first use on September 3, 2007. The marks have been prominently displayed in connection with all seventy-four of VHG's resort and hotel properties, on its website at www.verimark.com, through its social media presence including the Northpoint Services Inc. handle @verimarkhospitality, and in connection with extensive marketing, advertising, and promotional campaigns across print, digital, broadcast, and out-of-home media. Yee Decl. ¶¶ 23–30.

5. VHG has invested substantially in developing, promoting, and protecting the VERIMARK brand. In FY 2024 alone, VHG invested approximately $142 million in marketing and advertising expenditures, representing approximately 7.6% of its annual revenue. These investments have been sustained at comparable levels over the preceding decade. As a result of this sustained investment and the quality of services rendered under the VERIMARK marks, VHG has built substantial goodwill and brand recognition among consumers in the luxury and upscale hospitality market. The VERIMARK marks are widely recognized by consumers, travel industry professionals, and the trade press as identifying the source and quality of VHG's hospitality services. Yee Decl. ¶¶ 31–40; Exs. H, I (media coverage, industry awards, brand valuation reports).

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

C. Defendant's Infringing Conduct

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

8. CVR's "VR Verimark" stylized logo utilizes a serif typeface and a blue-and-gold color palette that closely mirrors the navy-and-gold color scheme employed in VHG's registered "V" Design Mark (U.S. Reg. No. 5,489,701). A side-by-side comparison of CVR's logo and VHG's registered design mark, as presented in Exhibit L to the Quintana Declaration, demonstrates a striking visual similarity in overall commercial impression, lettering style, and color treatment. Quintana Decl. ¶¶ 16–20; Ex. L.

9. CVR's Fort Lauderdale resort, which opened on or about March 15, 2024, is located at 6810 Ocean Drive, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308. This property is situated approximately four (4) miles from VHG's "Verimark Oceanview" property at 1740 N. Fort Lauderdale Beach Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33305. The two properties operate in the same geographic market and target substantially overlapping consumer demographics. Quintana Decl. ¶¶ 21–25; Ex. M (map depicting proximity).

10. CVR registered the domain name www.verimarkresortsgroup.com through the domain registrar NetLedger Domains Inc. on January 12, 2024 — four days after CVR's formation with the Florida Department of State. CVR created the Northpoint Services Inc. handle @verimarkresortsofficial on January 20, 2024. Both the domain name and the Northpoint Services Inc. handle prominently feature the term "VERIMARK," which is identical to VHG's registered mark. Quintana Decl. ¶¶ 26–30; Exs. N, O (WHOIS records, Northpoint Services Inc. profile screenshots).

11. On April 15, 2024, CVR filed United States Trademark Application Serial No. 98/432,117 with the USPTO for the mark "VERIMARK RESORTS" in International Class 043. Plaintiff VHG subsequently filed an opposition proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB"), captioned as Opposition No. 91/287,456, on December 3, 2024. CVR's trademark application is currently suspended pending the outcome of the TTAB opposition. Yee Decl. ¶¶ 44–46; Ex. P (TTAB filing).

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

D. Evidence of Consumer Confusion

13. Plaintiff has presented compelling evidence of actual consumer confusion arising from CVR's use of the infringing marks. Jorge A. Quintana, Lead Investigator at Broadleaf Investigations Inc., has documented twenty-three (23) instances of actual consumer confusion occurring between March 2024 and June 2025. These instances include, but are not limited to: (a) misdirected reservation inquiries, in which consumers intending to book accommodations at a VHG property contacted CVR's Fort Lauderdale resort, and vice versa; (b) social media misattributions, in which consumers posted photographs and reviews on VHG's social media pages while describing experiences at CVR properties; and (c) consumer reviews posted on VHG property listing pages on third-party travel platforms, including Kestrel Group and Bramwell Holdings, referencing specific amenities and staff members at CVR's properties. Quintana Decl. ¶¶ 37–62; Exs. S, T, U (compiled confusion evidence, screenshots, email correspondence from confused consumers). The Court finds this evidence of actual confusion to be credible, substantial, and probative of a likelihood of continued confusion in the marketplace.

E. Cease-and-Desist History

14. Upon learning of CVR's use of the infringing marks, VHG's General Counsel, Sonia M. Trevino, sent a detailed cease-and-desist letter to CVR on May 14, 2024, demanding that CVR immediately cease all use of the "VERIMARK RESORTS" and "VR Verimark" marks and any other marks incorporating the term "VERIMARK." CVR's counsel, Natasha K. Okonkwo of Alcántara Reeves LLP, responded by letter dated June 7, 2024, denying that CVR's marks infringe upon VHG's trademark rights and declining to cease use. Yee Decl. ¶¶ 47–49; Exs. V, W.

15. On August 12, 2024, Marcus Delgado of Calderwood & Harkness LLP, acting as newly retained outside counsel for VHG, sent a second, more detailed cease-and-desist letter to CVR, providing additional legal analysis and enclosing examples of actual consumer confusion that had already been documented. CVR's counsel responded by letter dated September 5, 2024, again declining to cease use and asserting that the marks were non-infringing. Yee Decl. ¶¶ 50–52; Exs. X, Y.

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

II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Legal Standard for Preliminary Injunction

17. A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should not be granted unless the movant clearly establishes the burden of persuasion as to each of the following four prerequisites: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable harm absent an injunction; (3) the balance of hardships — that is, that the threatened injury to the movant outweighs any harm the injunction may cause to the opposing party; and (4) that the injunction, if issued, will not be adverse to the public interest. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1225–26 (11th Cir. 2005); McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998). The Court addresses each factor in turn.

B. Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Merits

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

19. To prevail on a claim of trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1), a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (i) it possesses a valid, legally protectable mark; and (ii) the defendant's use of the mark, or a confusingly similar mark, is likely to cause confusion as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the defendant's goods or services. See Lone Star Steaks, Inc. v. Lone Star Cafe, Inc., 43 F.3d 509 (11th Cir. 1995); Frehling Enters., Inc. v. Int'l Select Grp., Inc., 192 F.3d 1330, 1335 (11th Cir. 1999). There is no genuine dispute that VHG's three federal trademark registrations are valid, subsisting, and entitled to the presumptions of validity, ownership, and exclusive right to use that attach to marks registered on the Principal Register. See 15 U.S.C. § 1115(a); KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543 U.S. 111, 117 (2004). The contested issue on this motion is likelihood of confusion.

20. In the Eleventh Circuit, the likelihood of confusion is assessed by examining seven factors: (1) the strength of the plaintiff's mark; (2) the similarity of the marks at issue; (3) the similarity of the parties' goods or services; (4) the similarity of the parties' trade channels and customers; (5) the similarity of advertising media used; (6) the defendant's intent; and (7) actual confusion. See Frehling Enters., 192 F.3d at 1335; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Safeway discount Drugs, Inc., 675 F.2d 1160, 1164 (11th Cir. 1982). No single factor is dispositive, and the analysis is a fact-intensive inquiry into the totality of the circumstances. The Court addresses each factor below.

21. Factor 1 — Strength of the Mark. VHG's VERIMARK marks are strong. The term "VERIMARK" is an arbitrary or, at minimum, suggestive mark when applied to hotel and resort services. It does not describe any quality, feature, or characteristic of hospitality services. VHG's marks are registered on the Principal Register and enjoy the attendant presumptions of distinctiveness and validity. See 15 U.S.C. § 1115(a). Beyond their inherent distinctiveness, VHG's marks have acquired substantial commercial strength through over seventeen years of continuous and extensive use, significant advertising and promotional expenditures of approximately $142 million in FY 2024 alone, deployment across seventy-four branded properties in eighteen states and the Caribbean, and widespread media coverage and industry recognition. The combination of inherent and acquired strength places VHG's VERIMARK marks at the highest end of the distinctiveness spectrum. This factor weighs strongly in VHG's favor.

22. Factor 2 — Similarity of the Marks. The Court finds that CVR's marks "VERIMARK RESORTS" and "VR Verimark" are substantially similar to VHG's registered marks "VERIMARK," "VERIMARK HOSPITALITY," and the "V" Design Mark. CVR's marks incorporate VHG's registered mark "VERIMARK" in its entirety. It is well established that where a defendant's mark wholly incorporates a plaintiff's registered mark and merely adds a generic or descriptive term (here, "RESORTS"), the marks are likely to be found confusingly similar. See Hershey Co. v. Art Van Furniture, Inc., 2008 WL 4724756, at 5 (E.D. Mich. 2008); Kenner Parker Toys Inc. v. Rose Art Indus., Inc.*, 963 F.2d 350, 353 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The word "RESORTS" is merely descriptive of the services offered and does nothing to distinguish CVR's marks from VHG's marks in the minds of consumers. Moreover, CVR's "VR Verimark" stylized logo employs a serif typeface and a blue-and-gold color palette that closely mimics the navy-and-gold treatment of VHG's "V" Design Mark, further amplifying the visual similarity between the marks. Viewed in their entireties and in terms of sight, sound, and meaning, the marks are substantially similar. This factor weighs strongly in VHG's favor.

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

24. Factor 4 — Similarity of Trade Channels and Geographic Markets. Both parties market luxury coastal resort services in the southeastern United States. Both parties reach consumers through substantially identical trade channels: direct online booking through proprietary websites, listings on third-party online travel agency platforms such as Kestrel Group, Bramwell Holdings, and Aldermere Technologies, social media marketing on platforms including Northpoint Services Inc. and Kestrel Services Inc., and traditional advertising in print and digital travel publications. CVR's Fort Lauderdale resort is located approximately four miles from VHG's Verimark Oceanview property at 1740 N. Fort Lauderdale Beach Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The overlap in both geographic markets and marketing channels is substantial and virtually complete. This factor weighs strongly in VHG's favor.

25. Factor 5 — Defendant's Intent. The evidence supports a finding that CVR adopted its marks with knowledge of, or at minimum constructive notice of, VHG's prior rights. VHG's federal trademark registrations provide constructive notice to the entire nation of VHG's claim of ownership. See 15 U.S.C. § 1072. CVR was formed on January 8, 2024, and within days registered the domain www.verimarkresortsgroup.com (January 12, 2024) and created the Northpoint Services Inc. handle @verimarkresortsofficial (January 20, 2024). These actions, taken in such rapid succession to CVR's formation, suggest a deliberate plan to adopt a mark incorporating VHG's well-known VERIMARK name. Moreover, CVR continued and expanded its use of the infringing marks after receiving two separate cease-and-desist letters from VHG, dated May 14, 2024 and August 12, 2024, respectively. While the Court need not find subjective bad faith to weigh this factor, the totality of the circumstances — the selection of a mark incorporating VHG's registered mark in its entirety, the close geographic proximity to a VHG property, and the continued expansion despite notice of VHG's objection — supports an inference of intent. This factor weighs in VHG's favor.

26. Factor 6 — Actual Confusion. Plaintiff has presented compelling evidence of twenty-three (23) documented instances of actual consumer confusion occurring over a period of approximately fifteen months (March 2024 through June 2025). Evidence of actual confusion is the best evidence of likelihood of confusion and is entitled to substantial weight. See Swatch AG v. Beehive Wholesale, LLC, 739 F.3d 150, 160 (4th Cir. 2014); Safeway Stores, 675 F.2d at 1167. The documented instances include misdirected reservation inquiries, social media posts misattributing CVR experiences to VHG, and consumer reviews on third-party platforms posted to VHG property pages that describe experiences at CVR properties. The Court finds that twenty-three documented instances over this period, in the context of boutique resort operations where individual transactions and consumer interactions are not as voluminous as in mass-market retail, constitutes strong evidence of actual confusion. This factor weighs strongly in VHG's favor.

27. Factor 7 — Consumer Sophistication. CVR argues that consumers selecting luxury resort accommodations exercise a high degree of care and sophistication, which reduces the likelihood of confusion. The Court acknowledges that consumers booking luxury resort stays may exercise greater deliberation than purchasers of inexpensive, impulse-driven goods. However, the evidence of actual confusion in this case demonstrates that, notwithstanding whatever care these consumers may exercise, confusion has in fact occurred and continues to occur. The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that even sophisticated consumers may be confused when the marks at issue are highly similar and used in connection with identical services. See Tana v. Dantanna's, 611 F.3d 767, 778 (11th Cir. 2010). Moreover, initial interest confusion — confusion at the point of initial consumer attention, even if eventually dispelled — is itself actionable and harmful. This factor is, at best, neutral and does not significantly mitigate the strong showing of confusion established by the other factors.

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

29. CVR's Descriptiveness/Genericness Defense. The Court has considered and rejects CVR's argument that the term "Verimark" is descriptive or generic, allegedly constituting a portmanteau of "verified mark of quality" that any hospitality provider should be free to use. This argument fails for several reasons. First, VHG's VERIMARK marks are registered on the Principal Register of the USPTO, which creates a presumption that the marks are valid, distinctive, and not generic or merely descriptive. See 15 U.S.C. § 1115(a). The burden falls upon CVR to rebut this presumption by a preponderance of the evidence, which it has not done. Second, the term "VERIMARK" does not immediately convey any quality, feature, ingredient, or characteristic of hotel or resort services. A consumer encountering the term "VERIMARK" in connection with hospitality services would not immediately understand it to refer to a "verified mark of quality"; such an interpretation requires multiple steps of reasoning and imagination, which is the hallmark of a suggestive or arbitrary mark rather than a descriptive one. See Zatarains, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc., 698 F.2d 786, 791 (5th Cir. 1983). Third, CVR has presented no evidence that the term "Verimark" is commonly used by others in the hospitality industry or has been used generically to refer to a class of services. The Court concludes that VHG's VERIMARK marks are arbitrary or, at a minimum, suggestive, and are entitled to broad protection.

30. Dilution Claim. Although the Court need not decide the dilution claim with finality at this preliminary stage, the Court notes that VHG has made a sufficient showing that its VERIMARK marks qualify as "famous" within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(A), given their extensive use for over seventeen years, the magnitude of VHG's advertising expenditures, the breadth of VHG's operations across seventy-four properties, and the degree of recognition among the consuming public. CVR's use of marks incorporating "VERIMARK" in its entirety for identical services is likely to cause dilution by blurring, as it tends to impair the distinctiveness of VHG's famous marks by creating an association between the marks and CVR's services.

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

C. Irreparable Harm

32. VHG has demonstrated that it will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction. The continued use of the infringing marks by CVR results in: (a) loss of control over VHG's brand reputation and goodwill, as VHG cannot control the quality of services rendered by CVR under marks confusingly similar to VHG's own; (b) ongoing and increasing consumer confusion, as evidenced by the twenty-three documented instances already in the record, with additional confusion likely as CVR continues to expand its operations; and (c) dilution of VHG's famous VERIMARK marks, diminishing the distinctiveness and selling power that VHG has built over more than seventeen years and through the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars.

33. Congress has provided a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm in trademark cases upon a finding of likelihood of success on the merits. See 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a) ("A plaintiff seeking [injunctive] relief shall be entitled to a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm upon a finding of a violation . . . [or] . . . upon a finding of likelihood of success on the merits for a violation . . . ."); see also North American Medical Corp. v. Axiom Worldwide, Inc., 522 F.3d 1211, 1228 (11th Cir. 2008). Having found a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, VHG is entitled to this presumption. CVR has not presented evidence sufficient to rebut it.

34. The harm to VHG is not fully compensable by monetary damages. Brand reputation, consumer trust, and the distinctiveness of a famous mark, once eroded, cannot be precisely quantified or fully restored through a damages award. The intangible nature of the injury to VHG's goodwill and brand equity is precisely the type of harm that equity was designed to address. See Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. v. Barrow, 143 F. App'x 180, 190 (11th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that damage to goodwill is inherently difficult to quantify and constitutes irreparable harm).

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

D. Balance of Equities

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

37. In contrast, CVR has used the infringing marks for approximately sixteen months as of the date of the preliminary injunction hearing. CVR does not possess any federal trademark registrations; its sole trademark application is currently suspended pending the TTAB opposition proceeding. CVR does not have a protectable interest in marks that infringe upon VHG's prior rights. The Eleventh Circuit and other courts have consistently recognized that any harm to a defendant from being enjoined from using infringing marks is largely self-inflicted, particularly where the defendant adopted the marks with constructive notice of the plaintiff's prior registered rights. See Lone Star Steaks, 43 F.3d at 514; Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc., 261 F.3d 1188, 1198 (11th Cir. 2001). CVR adopted its marks with, at minimum, constructive notice of VHG's three federal registrations under 15 U.S.C. § 1072, and continued to expand its use of those marks after receiving two cease-and-desist letters. Any hardship to CVR resulting from the entry of this injunction is of its own making.

38. The balance of equities favors VHG.

E. Public Interest

39. The entry of a preliminary injunction serves the public interest. The Lanham Act was enacted, in part, to protect the public from confusion as to the source of goods and services in the marketplace. See Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 774 (1992). The public has a substantial interest in being free from confusion and deception when selecting hospitality services. The evidence in this case demonstrates that actual consumer confusion has already occurred and will continue in the absence of injunctive relief. Enforcing VHG's trademark rights and enjoining CVR's infringing use serves the dual purposes of preventing consumer confusion and upholding the integrity of the federal trademark registration system.

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

III. ORDER

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

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

(a) Using the marks "VERIMARK RESORTS," "VR Verimark," or any other mark, name, word, symbol, device, or combination thereof that incorporates the term "VERIMARK" or any confusingly similar variation thereof, in connection with resort, hotel, hospitality, lodging, or accommodation services, or in any other manner likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, connection, or approval of Defendant's services with or by Plaintiff Verimark Hospitality Group Inc.;

(b) Using any mark, logo, trade dress, design, or commercial impression that is confusingly similar to VHG's federally registered marks: United States Registration No. 3,742,618 ("VERIMARK"), United States Registration No. 4,105,233 ("VERIMARK HOSPITALITY"), and United States Registration No. 5,489,701 (VERIMARK "V" Design Mark), including but not limited to any mark employing a similar serif typeface and blue-and-gold color palette in connection with the term "VERIMARK" or any confusingly similar variation thereof;

(c) Manufacturing, producing, distributing, circulating, advertising, promoting, offering for sale, selling, or providing any goods or services under, or in connection with, the infringing marks identified in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above, or any marks confusingly similar thereto.

This prohibition takes effect immediately upon entry of this Order and shall remain in effect pending final disposition of this action or further order of the Court.

2. Removal of Signage, Marketing Materials, and Online Content. Within fourteen (14) calendar days of entry of this Order, Defendant shall:

(a) Remove or cause to be removed all signage, displays, printed materials, brochures, pamphlets, menus, business cards, letterhead, stationery, uniforms, name badges, merchandise, promotional items, and any other physical or tangible materials bearing the marks "VERIMARK RESORTS," "VR Verimark," or any confusingly similar marks, from all of Defendant's properties, offices, and places of business, including without limitation:

(i) the Fort Lauderdale resort located at 6810 Ocean Drive, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308;

(ii) the Harborline Enterprises Head Island resort located at 44 Lighthouse Road, Harborline Enterprises Head Island, SC 29928; and

(iii) the Destin property under development located at 1025 Emerald Coast Parkway, Destin, FL 32541;

(b) Remove or cause to be removed all online content, including but not limited to website pages, web banners, online advertisements (including Strathmore Systems, Meta Ads, and any other paid digital advertising), social media posts and profiles, listings on third-party booking and travel platforms (including but not limited to Kestrel Group, Bramwell Holdings, Aldermere Technologies, Drayton Software, and Pinnacle Health IT), email marketing templates, digital newsletters, and any other digital or electronic marketing materials, that bear or display the infringing marks or any confusingly similar marks.

3. Domain Name and Social Media Accounts. Within fourteen (14) calendar days of entry of this Order, Defendant shall:

(a) Disable, take down, or transfer to Plaintiff the domain name www.verimarkresortsgroup.com (registered through the domain registrar NetLedger Domains Inc. on January 12, 2024). If Plaintiff elects transfer of the domain name, Defendant shall cooperate fully with Plaintiff and the domain registrar and shall execute all necessary authorizations, forms, and instructions to effectuate the transfer in a prompt and efficient manner. Plaintiff shall notify Defendant's counsel in writing within five (5) business days of entry of this Order whether Plaintiff elects transfer or requests that the domain be disabled.

(b) Disable, deactivate, or transfer to Plaintiff the Northpoint Services Inc. handle @verimarkresortsofficial (created January 20, 2024) and any other social media accounts on any platform — including but not limited to Kestrel Services Inc., X (formerly Fenmore Solutions), Dunmore & Co., Westmark Health IT, Pinterest, and Crowne Albany Partners LLC — that use the term "VERIMARK" or any confusingly similar variation thereof. If Plaintiff elects transfer of any social media account, Defendant shall cooperate fully and execute all necessary authorizations to effectuate the transfer.

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

(a) A comprehensive list identifying all physical locations — including resort properties, offices, storage facilities, and construction sites — from which materials bearing the infringing marks have been removed, together with a description of the materials removed from each location;

(b) A comprehensive list identifying all websites, social media accounts, third-party booking platforms, and other online or digital platforms from which infringing content has been removed or that have been disabled or transferred, together with the date on which each such action was completed;

(c) Confirmation that the domain name www.verimarkresortsgroup.com and the Northpoint Services Inc. handle @verimarkresortsofficial have been disabled or transferred in accordance with Paragraph 3 of this Order, together with supporting documentation (such as registrar confirmation emails or screenshots);

(d) A certification that Defendant has provided written notice to all of its employees, agents, independent contractors, vendors, marketing agencies, and other persons or entities acting on its behalf of the terms of this Order, together with copies of the notices provided.

5. Scope of Injunction — Third Property and Future Operations. The injunctive relief granted by this Order applies to all current and future properties, operations, marketing, advertising, and business activities of Defendant Coral Verimark Resorts LLC, wherever located, including but not limited to the property currently under development at 1025 Emerald Coast Parkway, Destin, Florida 32541. Defendant is hereby enjoined from opening, operating, marketing, advertising, or promoting any resort, hotel, hospitality property, or lodging service under the infringing marks "VERIMARK RESORTS," "VR Verimark," or any other mark, name, or designation that incorporates the term "VERIMARK" or any confusingly similar variation thereof.

6. Bond. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), Plaintiff Verimark Hospitality Group Inc. shall post a bond in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) as security for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by Defendant Coral Verimark Resorts LLC if it is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. Plaintiff shall post such bond within seven (7) business days of entry of this Order. The bond shall be maintained with the Clerk of Court for the duration of the preliminary injunction. The Court has considered the likely costs and damages that Defendant might sustain if the injunction is later determined to have been wrongfully issued and finds that this amount is adequate and appropriate in light of the strength of Plaintiff's showing on the merits and the nature of the relief granted.

7. Preservation of Evidence. Defendant shall preserve and maintain, and shall not destroy, delete, alter, conceal, or dispose of, all documents, records, communications (whether in electronic or physical form), financial records, accounting records, invoices, receipts, contracts, marketing materials, advertising materials, customer lists, reservation records, correspondence, emails, text messages, instant messages, social media communications, and any other evidence or materials of any kind relating to: (a) Defendant's use of the marks "VERIMARK RESORTS," "VR Verimark," or any variation thereof; (b) Defendant's adoption, development, selection, and design of its marks; (c) Defendant's revenues, profits, costs, and expenses associated with the infringing marks; and (d) any instances of consumer confusion of which Defendant is aware. This obligation shall remain in effect throughout the pendency of this action and shall apply to all such materials in the possession, custody, or control of Defendant, its officers, members, managers, employees, agents, and representatives.

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

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

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

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this _ day of _____, 2025.

________________________________________

HON. ADRIENNE M. CASTELLANO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

SUBMITTED BY:

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

By: ________

Marcus Delgado (FL Bar No. 0087412) Catherine Bloom (FL Bar No. 0093758) Peter Vassiliev (FL Bar No. 0124603) Wendy Schultz (FL Bar No. 0131289)

400 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3200 Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 555-4800 Facsimile: (305) 555-4801

Email: mdelgado@calderwoodharkness.com

Email: cbloom@calderwoodharkness.com

Email: pvassiliev@calderwoodharkness.com

Email: wschultz@calderwoodharkness.com

Counsel for Plaintiff Verimark Hospitality Group Inc.

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
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff Verimark Hospitality Group Inc.'s ("VHG" or "Plaintiff") Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 14), filed July 22, 2025, together with the accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support (ECF No. 14-1), the Declaration of Leonard Yee, Vice President of Brand Protection of VHG (ECF No. 14-2), the Declaration of Jorge A. Quintana, Lead Investigator at Broadleaf Investigations Inc. (ECF No. 14-3), and all exhibits attached thereto (ECF Nos. 14-4 through 14-19). The Court has reviewed the Verified Complaint (ECF No. 1), Defendant Coral Verimark Resorts LLC's ("CVR" or "Defendant") Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 22), Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum (ECF No. 28), the declarations and exhibits submitted by both parties, and all other relevant filings in this matter. The Court heard oral argument from counsel for both parties at a hearing conducted on September 10, 2025, at the Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. United States Courthouse, Miami, Florida.
Plaintiff is represented by Marcus Delgado and Catherine Bloom, Partners, and Peter Vassiliev and Wendy Schultz, Associates, of Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 400 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3200, Miami, Florida 33131. Defendant Coral Verimark Resorts LLC is represented by Natasha K. Okonkwo, Partner, and Derek S. Fuentes, Associate, of Alcántara Reeves LLP, 200 Las Olas Circle, Suite 700, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301.
Having considered the record in its entirety, the applicable law, the arguments of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, and enters this Order.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. The Parties
1. Plaintiff Verimark Hospitality Group Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business and corporate headquarters located at 2200 Bayshore Boulevard, Suite 1400, Tampa, Florida 33629. VHG is a publicly traded company listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the ticker symbol "VMHG." VHG is engaged in the hospitality and real estate industries. As of the date of the Verified Complaint, VHG operates seventy-four (74) branded resort and hotel properties across eighteen (18) states and the Caribbean. For its fiscal year ending December 31, 2024 ("FY 2024"), VHG reported annual revenue of approximately $1.87 billion, as reflected in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. VHG is one of the recognized leaders in the luxury and upscale hospitality market in the southeastern United States and Caribbean region. Declaration of Leonard Yee ("Yee Decl.") ¶¶ 3–8; Exs. A, B.
2. Defendant Coral Verimark Resorts LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, formed on January 8, 2024, as reflected in the records of the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations. CVR maintains its principal office at 6810 Ocean Drive, Unit 3, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308. CVR currently operates two boutique luxury coastal resort properties: one located at its principal office address in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and a second property located at 44 Lighthouse Road, Harborline Enterprises Head Island, South Carolina 29928. CVR has a third property under active development at 1025 Emerald Coast Parkway, Destin, Florida 32541. The Managing Member and Founder of CVR is Rafael J. Medina. The Co-Member and Operations Director of CVR is Gabriela N. Serrano. Yee Decl. ¶¶ 10–14; Declaration of Jorge A. Quintana ("Quintana Decl.") ¶¶ 5–9; Exs. C, D.
B. Plaintiff's Trademark Rights
3. VHG is the owner of three federally registered trademarks, each registered on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), in International Class 043 for hotel and resort services:
(a) United States Registration No. 3,742,618 — "VERIMARK" (standard character/word mark), registered on March 17, 2009. The mark was first used in commerce on September 3, 2007. The registration is valid, subsisting, and incontestable, a declaration of incontestability having been accepted by the USPTO under Section 15 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1065.
(b) United States Registration No. 4,105,233 — "VERIMARK HOSPITALITY" (standard character/word mark), registered on January 10, 2012. The registration is valid and subsisting.
(c) United States Registration No. 5,489,701 — VERIMARK "V" Design Mark (stylized), consisting of a stylized letter "V" rendered in navy blue with gold accents and the word "Verimark" positioned beneath the design element, registered on May 22, 2018. The registration is valid and subsisting.
Yee Decl. ¶¶ 16–22; Exs. E, F, G (certified copies of registrations).
4. VHG has used the VERIMARK marks continuously and extensively in interstate and international commerce for over seventeen (17) years, commencing with first use on September 3, 2007. The marks have been prominently displayed in connection with all seventy-four of VHG's resort and hotel properties, on its website at www.verimark.com, through its social media presence including the Northpoint Services Inc. handle @verimarkhospitality, and in connection with extensive marketing, advertising, and promotional campaigns across print, digital, broadcast, and out-of-home media. Yee Decl. ¶¶ 23–30.
5. VHG has invested substantially in developing, promoting, and protecting the VERIMARK brand. In FY 2024 alone, VHG invested approximately $142 million in marketing and advertising expenditures, representing approximately 7.6% of its annual revenue. These investments have been sustained at comparable levels over the preceding decade. As a result of this sustained investment and the quality of services rendered under the VERIMARK marks, VHG has built substantial goodwill and brand recognition among consumers in the luxury and upscale hospitality market. The VERIMARK marks are widely recognized by consumers, travel industry professionals, and the trade press as identifying the source and quality of VHG's hospitality services. Yee Decl. ¶¶ 31–40; Exs. H, I (media coverage, industry awards, brand valuation reports).
6. VHG operates the primary domain name www.verimark.com, which serves as the principal online portal for its hospitality brand, receiving millions of unique visitors annually. VHG also maintains the Northpoint Services Inc. handle @verimarkhospitality, which has over 1.2 million followers as of the date of the preliminary injunction hearing. Yee Decl. ¶¶ 41–43.
C. Defendant's Infringing Conduct
7. CVR began using the marks "VERIMARK RESORTS" (in standard character form) and "VR Verimark" (a stylized logo) in commerce on or about March 1, 2024, in connection with resort and hospitality services. This date of first use is more than sixteen (16) years after VHG's first use of the VERIMARK mark in commerce on September 3, 2007. CVR has no federal trademark registrations. Quintana Decl. ¶¶ 11–15; Exs. J, K.
8. CVR's "VR Verimark" stylized logo utilizes a serif typeface and a blue-and-gold color palette that closely mirrors the navy-and-gold color scheme employed in VHG's registered "V" Design Mark (U.S. Reg. No. 5,489,701). A side-by-side comparison of CVR's logo and VHG's registered design mark, as presented in Exhibit L to the Quintana Declaration, demonstrates a striking visual similarity in overall commercial impression, lettering style, and color treatment. Quintana Decl. ¶¶ 16–20; Ex. L.
9. CVR's Fort Lauderdale resort, which opened on or about March 15, 2024, is located at 6810 Ocean Drive, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308. This property is situated approximately four (4) miles from VHG's "Verimark Oceanview" property at 1740 N. Fort Lauderdale Beach Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33305. The two properties operate in the same geographic market and target substantially overlapping consumer demographics. Quintana Decl. ¶¶ 21–25; Ex. M (map depicting proximity).
10. CVR registered the domain name www.verimarkresortsgroup.com through the domain registrar NetLedger Domains Inc. on January 12, 2024 — four days after CVR's formation with the Florida Department of State. CVR created the Northpoint Services Inc. handle @verimarkresortsofficial on January 20, 2024. Both the domain name and the Northpoint Services Inc. handle prominently feature the term "VERIMARK," which is identical to VHG's registered mark. Quintana Decl. ¶¶ 26–30; Exs. N, O (WHOIS records, Northpoint Services Inc. profile screenshots).
11. On April 15, 2024, CVR filed United States Trademark Application Serial No. 98/432,117 with the USPTO for the mark "VERIMARK RESORTS" in International Class 043. Plaintiff VHG subsequently filed an opposition proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB"), captioned as Opposition No. 91/287,456, on December 3, 2024. CVR's trademark application is currently suspended pending the outcome of the TTAB opposition. Yee Decl. ¶¶ 44–46; Ex. P (TTAB filing).
12. CVR's second resort property, located at 44 Lighthouse Road, Harborline Enterprises Head Island, South Carolina 29928, opened on or about June 1, 2024, operating under the "VERIMARK RESORTS" and "VR Verimark" marks. CVR's third property, at 1025 Emerald Coast Parkway, Destin, Florida 32541, is currently under active development and is being marketed under the infringing marks. Quintana Decl. ¶¶ 31–36; Exs. Q, R (marketing materials for Destin property).
D. Evidence of Consumer Confusion
13. Plaintiff has presented compelling evidence of actual consumer confusion arising from CVR's use of the infringing marks. Jorge A. Quintana, Lead Investigator at Broadleaf Investigations Inc., has documented twenty-three (23) instances of actual consumer confusion occurring between March 2024 and June 2025. These instances include, but are not limited to: (a) misdirected reservation inquiries, in which consumers intending to book accommodations at a VHG property contacted CVR's Fort Lauderdale resort, and vice versa; (b) social media misattributions, in which consumers posted photographs and reviews on VHG's social media pages while describing experiences at CVR properties; and (c) consumer reviews posted on VHG property listing pages on third-party travel platforms, including Kestrel Group and Bramwell Holdings, referencing specific amenities and staff members at CVR's properties. Quintana Decl. ¶¶ 37–62; Exs. S, T, U (compiled confusion evidence, screenshots, email correspondence from confused consumers). The Court finds this evidence of actual confusion to be credible, substantial, and probative of a likelihood of continued confusion in the marketplace.
E. Cease-and-Desist History
14. Upon learning of CVR's use of the infringing marks, VHG's General Counsel, Sonia M. Trevino, sent a detailed cease-and-desist letter to CVR on May 14, 2024, demanding that CVR immediately cease all use of the "VERIMARK RESORTS" and "VR Verimark" marks and any other marks incorporating the term "VERIMARK." CVR's counsel, Natasha K. Okonkwo of Alcántara Reeves LLP, responded by letter dated June 7, 2024, denying that CVR's marks infringe upon VHG's trademark rights and declining to cease use. Yee Decl. ¶¶ 47–49; Exs. V, W.
15. On August 12, 2024, Marcus Delgado of Calderwood & Harkness LLP, acting as newly retained outside counsel for VHG, sent a second, more detailed cease-and-desist letter to CVR, providing additional legal analysis and enclosing examples of actual consumer confusion that had already been documented. CVR's counsel responded by letter dated September 5, 2024, again declining to cease use and asserting that the marks were non-infringing. Yee Decl. ¶¶ 50–52; Exs. X, Y.
16. No settlement discussions have occurred between the parties since CVR's September 5, 2024 response letter. Despite two cease-and-desist letters, CVR has continued and, indeed, expanded its use of the infringing marks, including opening its Harborline Enterprises Head Island property and commencing development and marketing of its Destin property, all under the infringing marks. This continued use in the face of VHG's objections is relevant to the Court's assessment of CVR's intent and the equities of this case.
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Legal Standard for Preliminary Injunction
17. A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should not be granted unless the movant clearly establishes the burden of persuasion as to each of the following four prerequisites: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable harm absent an injunction; (3) the balance of hardships — that is, that the threatened injury to the movant outweighs any harm the injunction may cause to the opposing party; and (4) that the injunction, if issued, will not be adverse to the public interest. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1225–26 (11th Cir. 2005); McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998). The Court addresses each factor in turn.
B. Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Merits
18. VHG has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claims for federal trademark infringement under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1); federal unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); and federal trademark dilution under Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).
19. To prevail on a claim of trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1), a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (i) it possesses a valid, legally protectable mark; and (ii) the defendant's use of the mark, or a confusingly similar mark, is likely to cause confusion as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the defendant's goods or services. See Lone Star Steaks, Inc. v. Lone Star Cafe, Inc., 43 F.3d 509 (11th Cir. 1995); Frehling Enters., Inc. v. Int'l Select Grp., Inc., 192 F.3d 1330, 1335 (11th Cir. 1999). There is no genuine dispute that VHG's three federal trademark registrations are valid, subsisting, and entitled to the presumptions of validity, ownership, and exclusive right to use that attach to marks registered on the Principal Register. See 15 U.S.C. § 1115(a); KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543 U.S. 111, 117 (2004). The contested issue on this motion is likelihood of confusion.
20. In the Eleventh Circuit, the likelihood of confusion is assessed by examining seven factors: (1) the strength of the plaintiff's mark; (2) the similarity of the marks at issue; (3) the similarity of the parties' goods or services; (4) the similarity of the parties' trade channels and customers; (5) the similarity of advertising media used; (6) the defendant's intent; and (7) actual confusion. See Frehling Enters., 192 F.3d at 1335; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Safeway discount Drugs, Inc., 675 F.2d 1160, 1164 (11th Cir. 1982). No single factor is dispositive, and the analysis is a fact-intensive inquiry into the totality of the circumstances. The Court addresses each factor below.
21. Factor 1 — Strength of the Mark. VHG's VERIMARK marks are strong. The term "VERIMARK" is an arbitrary or, at minimum, suggestive mark when applied to hotel and resort services. It does not describe any quality, feature, or characteristic of hospitality services. VHG's marks are registered on the Principal Register and enjoy the attendant presumptions of distinctiveness and validity. See 15 U.S.C. § 1115(a). Beyond their inherent distinctiveness, VHG's marks have acquired substantial commercial strength through over seventeen years of continuous and extensive use, significant advertising and promotional expenditures of approximately $142 million in FY 2024 alone, deployment across seventy-four branded properties in eighteen states and the Caribbean, and widespread media coverage and industry recognition. The combination of inherent and acquired strength places VHG's VERIMARK marks at the highest end of the distinctiveness spectrum. This factor weighs strongly in VHG's favor.
22. Factor 2 — Similarity of the Marks. The Court finds that CVR's marks "VERIMARK RESORTS" and "VR Verimark" are substantially similar to VHG's registered marks "VERIMARK," "VERIMARK HOSPITALITY," and the "V" Design Mark. CVR's marks incorporate VHG's registered mark "VERIMARK" in its entirety. It is well established that where a defendant's mark wholly incorporates a plaintiff's registered mark and merely adds a generic or descriptive term (here, "RESORTS"), the marks are likely to be found confusingly similar. See Hershey Co. v. Art Van Furniture, Inc., 2008 WL 4724756, at 5 (E.D. Mich. 2008); Kenner Parker Toys Inc. v. Rose Art Indus., Inc.*, 963 F.2d 350, 353 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The word "RESORTS" is merely descriptive of the services offered and does nothing to distinguish CVR's marks from VHG's marks in the minds of consumers. Moreover, CVR's "VR Verimark" stylized logo employs a serif typeface and a blue-and-gold color palette that closely mimics the navy-and-gold treatment of VHG's "V" Design Mark, further amplifying the visual similarity between the marks. Viewed in their entireties and in terms of sight, sound, and meaning, the marks are substantially similar. This factor weighs strongly in VHG's favor.
23. Factor 3 — Similarity of Services. Both VHG and CVR offer hotel and resort services — the identical services covered by VHG's registrations in International Class 043. There is no meaningful distinction between the services offered by the two parties that would reduce the likelihood of confusion. This factor weighs decisively in VHG's favor.
24. Factor 4 — Similarity of Trade Channels and Geographic Markets. Both parties market luxury coastal resort services in the southeastern United States. Both parties reach consumers through substantially identical trade channels: direct online booking through proprietary websites, listings on third-party online travel agency platforms such as Kestrel Group, Bramwell Holdings, and Aldermere Technologies, social media marketing on platforms including Northpoint Services Inc. and Kestrel Services Inc., and traditional advertising in print and digital travel publications. CVR's Fort Lauderdale resort is located approximately four miles from VHG's Verimark Oceanview property at 1740 N. Fort Lauderdale Beach Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The overlap in both geographic markets and marketing channels is substantial and virtually complete. This factor weighs strongly in VHG's favor.
25. Factor 5 — Defendant's Intent. The evidence supports a finding that CVR adopted its marks with knowledge of, or at minimum constructive notice of, VHG's prior rights. VHG's federal trademark registrations provide constructive notice to the entire nation of VHG's claim of ownership. See 15 U.S.C. § 1072. CVR was formed on January 8, 2024, and within days registered the domain www.verimarkresortsgroup.com (January 12, 2024) and created the Northpoint Services Inc. handle @verimarkresortsofficial (January 20, 2024). These actions, taken in such rapid succession to CVR's formation, suggest a deliberate plan to adopt a mark incorporating VHG's well-known VERIMARK name. Moreover, CVR continued and expanded its use of the infringing marks after receiving two separate cease-and-desist letters from VHG, dated May 14, 2024 and August 12, 2024, respectively. While the Court need not find subjective bad faith to weigh this factor, the totality of the circumstances — the selection of a mark incorporating VHG's registered mark in its entirety, the close geographic proximity to a VHG property, and the continued expansion despite notice of VHG's objection — supports an inference of intent. This factor weighs in VHG's favor.
26. Factor 6 — Actual Confusion. Plaintiff has presented compelling evidence of twenty-three (23) documented instances of actual consumer confusion occurring over a period of approximately fifteen months (March 2024 through June 2025). Evidence of actual confusion is the best evidence of likelihood of confusion and is entitled to substantial weight. See Swatch AG v. Beehive Wholesale, LLC, 739 F.3d 150, 160 (4th Cir. 2014); Safeway Stores, 675 F.2d at 1167. The documented instances include misdirected reservation inquiries, social media posts misattributing CVR experiences to VHG, and consumer reviews on third-party platforms posted to VHG property pages that describe experiences at CVR properties. The Court finds that twenty-three documented instances over this period, in the context of boutique resort operations where individual transactions and consumer interactions are not as voluminous as in mass-market retail, constitutes strong evidence of actual confusion. This factor weighs strongly in VHG's favor.
27. Factor 7 — Consumer Sophistication. CVR argues that consumers selecting luxury resort accommodations exercise a high degree of care and sophistication, which reduces the likelihood of confusion. The Court acknowledges that consumers booking luxury resort stays may exercise greater deliberation than purchasers of inexpensive, impulse-driven goods. However, the evidence of actual confusion in this case demonstrates that, notwithstanding whatever care these consumers may exercise, confusion has in fact occurred and continues to occur. The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that even sophisticated consumers may be confused when the marks at issue are highly similar and used in connection with identical services. See Tana v. Dantanna's, 611 F.3d 767, 778 (11th Cir. 2010). Moreover, initial interest confusion — confusion at the point of initial consumer attention, even if eventually dispelled — is itself actionable and harmful. This factor is, at best, neutral and does not significantly mitigate the strong showing of confusion established by the other factors.
28. Balancing of the Likelihood-of-Confusion Factors. Considering the totality of the circumstances and all seven factors in the aggregate, the Court finds that there is a substantial likelihood of consumer confusion between CVR's marks and VHG's marks. Every factor either favors VHG or is, at most, neutral. The evidence demonstrates a strong probability that consumers will be confused as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or connection between CVR's resort services and VHG's resort services.
29. CVR's Descriptiveness/Genericness Defense. The Court has considered and rejects CVR's argument that the term "Verimark" is descriptive or generic, allegedly constituting a portmanteau of "verified mark of quality" that any hospitality provider should be free to use. This argument fails for several reasons. First, VHG's VERIMARK marks are registered on the Principal Register of the USPTO, which creates a presumption that the marks are valid, distinctive, and not generic or merely descriptive. See 15 U.S.C. § 1115(a). The burden falls upon CVR to rebut this presumption by a preponderance of the evidence, which it has not done. Second, the term "VERIMARK" does not immediately convey any quality, feature, ingredient, or characteristic of hotel or resort services. A consumer encountering the term "VERIMARK" in connection with hospitality services would not immediately understand it to refer to a "verified mark of quality"; such an interpretation requires multiple steps of reasoning and imagination, which is the hallmark of a suggestive or arbitrary mark rather than a descriptive one. See Zatarains, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc., 698 F.2d 786, 791 (5th Cir. 1983). Third, CVR has presented no evidence that the term "Verimark" is commonly used by others in the hospitality industry or has been used generically to refer to a class of services. The Court concludes that VHG's VERIMARK marks are arbitrary or, at a minimum, suggestive, and are entitled to broad protection.
30. Dilution Claim. Although the Court need not decide the dilution claim with finality at this preliminary stage, the Court notes that VHG has made a sufficient showing that its VERIMARK marks qualify as "famous" within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(A), given their extensive use for over seventeen years, the magnitude of VHG's advertising expenditures, the breadth of VHG's operations across seventy-four properties, and the degree of recognition among the consuming public. CVR's use of marks incorporating "VERIMARK" in its entirety for identical services is likely to cause dilution by blurring, as it tends to impair the distinctiveness of VHG's famous marks by creating an association between the marks and CVR's services.
31. Accordingly, the Court finds that VHG has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its trademark infringement, unfair competition, and dilution claims.
C. Irreparable Harm
32. VHG has demonstrated that it will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction. The continued use of the infringing marks by CVR results in: (a) loss of control over VHG's brand reputation and goodwill, as VHG cannot control the quality of services rendered by CVR under marks confusingly similar to VHG's own; (b) ongoing and increasing consumer confusion, as evidenced by the twenty-three documented instances already in the record, with additional confusion likely as CVR continues to expand its operations; and (c) dilution of VHG's famous VERIMARK marks, diminishing the distinctiveness and selling power that VHG has built over more than seventeen years and through the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars.
33. Congress has provided a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm in trademark cases upon a finding of likelihood of success on the merits. See 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a) ("A plaintiff seeking [injunctive] relief shall be entitled to a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm upon a finding of a violation . . . [or] . . . upon a finding of likelihood of success on the merits for a violation . . . ."); see also North American Medical Corp. v. Axiom Worldwide, Inc., 522 F.3d 1211, 1228 (11th Cir. 2008). Having found a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, VHG is entitled to this presumption. CVR has not presented evidence sufficient to rebut it.
34. The harm to VHG is not fully compensable by monetary damages. Brand reputation, consumer trust, and the distinctiveness of a famous mark, once eroded, cannot be precisely quantified or fully restored through a damages award. The intangible nature of the injury to VHG's goodwill and brand equity is precisely the type of harm that equity was designed to address. See Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. v. Barrow, 143 F. App'x 180, 190 (11th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that damage to goodwill is inherently difficult to quantify and constitutes irreparable harm).
35. The Court finds that VHG has established a substantial threat of irreparable harm absent injunctive relief.
D. Balance of Equities
36. The balance of equities tips decidedly in VHG's favor. VHG has continuously used and invested in the VERIMARK marks for over seventeen years, building a national brand of significant value. VHG's three federal trademark registrations predate CVR's formation by many years. VHG has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising and promotion under its marks, generating substantial goodwill and consumer recognition.
37. In contrast, CVR has used the infringing marks for approximately sixteen months as of the date of the preliminary injunction hearing. CVR does not possess any federal trademark registrations; its sole trademark application is currently suspended pending the TTAB opposition proceeding. CVR does not have a protectable interest in marks that infringe upon VHG's prior rights. The Eleventh Circuit and other courts have consistently recognized that any harm to a defendant from being enjoined from using infringing marks is largely self-inflicted, particularly where the defendant adopted the marks with constructive notice of the plaintiff's prior registered rights. See Lone Star Steaks, 43 F.3d at 514; Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc., 261 F.3d 1188, 1198 (11th Cir. 2001). CVR adopted its marks with, at minimum, constructive notice of VHG's three federal registrations under 15 U.S.C. § 1072, and continued to expand its use of those marks after receiving two cease-and-desist letters. Any hardship to CVR resulting from the entry of this injunction is of its own making.
38. The balance of equities favors VHG.
E. Public Interest
39. The entry of a preliminary injunction serves the public interest. The Lanham Act was enacted, in part, to protect the public from confusion as to the source of goods and services in the marketplace. See Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 774 (1992). The public has a substantial interest in being free from confusion and deception when selecting hospitality services. The evidence in this case demonstrates that actual consumer confusion has already occurred and will continue in the absence of injunctive relief. Enforcing VHG's trademark rights and enjoining CVR's infringing use serves the dual purposes of preventing consumer confusion and upholding the integrity of the federal trademark registration system.
40. All four prerequisites for preliminary injunctive relief have been established by VHG. The Court will therefore grant VHG's Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
III. ORDER
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Injunction Against Use of Infringing Marks. Defendant Coral Verimark Resorts LLC, together with its officers, members, managers, employees, agents, representatives, successors, assigns, and all persons acting in active concert or participation with Defendant who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise, including specifically Rafael J. Medina (Managing Member and Founder) and Gabriela N. Serrano (Co-Member and Operations Director), are hereby ORDERED to immediately cease and desist from:
(a) Using the marks "VERIMARK RESORTS," "VR Verimark," or any other mark, name, word, symbol, device, or combination thereof that incorporates the term "VERIMARK" or any confusingly similar variation thereof, in connection with resort, hotel, hospitality, lodging, or accommodation services, or in any other manner likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, connection, or approval of Defendant's services with or by Plaintiff Verimark Hospitality Group Inc.;
(b) Using any mark, logo, trade dress, design, or commercial impression that is confusingly similar to VHG's federally registered marks: United States Registration No. 3,742,618 ("VERIMARK"), United States Registration No. 4,105,233 ("VERIMARK HOSPITALITY"), and United States Registration No. 5,489,701 (VERIMARK "V" Design Mark), including but not limited to any mark employing a similar serif typeface and blue-and-gold color palette in connection with the term "VERIMARK" or any confusingly similar variation thereof;
(c) Manufacturing, producing, distributing, circulating, advertising, promoting, offering for sale, selling, or providing any goods or services under, or in connection with, the infringing marks identified in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above, or any marks confusingly similar thereto.
This prohibition takes effect immediately upon entry of this Order and shall remain in effect pending final disposition of this action or further order of the Court.
2. Removal of Signage, Marketing Materials, and Online Content. Within fourteen (14) calendar days of entry of this Order, Defendant shall:
(a) Remove or cause to be removed all signage, displays, printed materials, brochures, pamphlets, menus, business cards, letterhead, stationery, uniforms, name badges, merchandise, promotional items, and any other physical or tangible materials bearing the marks "VERIMARK RESORTS," "VR Verimark," or any confusingly similar marks, from all of Defendant's properties, offices, and places of business, including without limitation:
(i) the Fort Lauderdale resort located at 6810 Ocean Drive, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308;
(ii) the Harborline Enterprises Head Island resort located at 44 Lighthouse Road, Harborline Enterprises Head Island, SC 29928; and
(iii) the Destin property under development located at 1025 Emerald Coast Parkway, Destin, FL 32541;
(b) Remove or cause to be removed all online content, including but not limited to website pages, web banners, online advertisements (including Strathmore Systems, Meta Ads, and any other paid digital advertising), social media posts and profiles, listings on third-party booking and travel platforms (including but not limited to Kestrel Group, Bramwell Holdings, Aldermere Technologies, Drayton Software, and Pinnacle Health IT), email marketing templates, digital newsletters, and any other digital or electronic marketing materials, that bear or display the infringing marks or any confusingly similar marks.
3. Domain Name and Social Media Accounts. Within fourteen (14) calendar days of entry of this Order, Defendant shall:
(a) Disable, take down, or transfer to Plaintiff the domain name www.verimarkresortsgroup.com (registered through the domain registrar NetLedger Domains Inc. on January 12, 2024). If Plaintiff elects transfer of the domain name, Defendant shall cooperate fully with Plaintiff and the domain registrar and shall execute all necessary authorizations, forms, and instructions to effectuate the transfer in a prompt and efficient manner. Plaintiff shall notify Defendant's counsel in writing within five (5) business days of entry of this Order whether Plaintiff elects transfer or requests that the domain be disabled.
(b) Disable, deactivate, or transfer to Plaintiff the Northpoint Services Inc. handle @verimarkresortsofficial (created January 20, 2024) and any other social media accounts on any platform — including but not limited to Kestrel Services Inc., X (formerly Fenmore Solutions), Dunmore & Co., Westmark Health IT, Pinterest, and Crowne Albany Partners LLC — that use the term "VERIMARK" or any confusingly similar variation thereof. If Plaintiff elects transfer of any social media account, Defendant shall cooperate fully and execute all necessary authorizations to effectuate the transfer.
4. Verified Report of Compliance. Within twenty-one (21) calendar days of entry of this Order, Defendant shall file with this Court and serve upon Plaintiff's counsel of record a verified written report of compliance, signed under oath by Rafael J. Medina, Managing Member of Coral Verimark Resorts LLC, describing in detail all actions taken to comply with Paragraphs 1 through 3 of this Order. The verified report shall include, at a minimum:
(a) A comprehensive list identifying all physical locations — including resort properties, offices, storage facilities, and construction sites — from which materials bearing the infringing marks have been removed, together with a description of the materials removed from each location;
(b) A comprehensive list identifying all websites, social media accounts, third-party booking platforms, and other online or digital platforms from which infringing content has been removed or that have been disabled or transferred, together with the date on which each such action was completed;
(c) Confirmation that the domain name www.verimarkresortsgroup.com and the Northpoint Services Inc. handle @verimarkresortsofficial have been disabled or transferred in accordance with Paragraph 3 of this Order, together with supporting documentation (such as registrar confirmation emails or screenshots);
(d) A certification that Defendant has provided written notice to all of its employees, agents, independent contractors, vendors, marketing agencies, and other persons or entities acting on its behalf of the terms of this Order, together with copies of the notices provided.
5. Scope of Injunction — Third Property and Future Operations. The injunctive relief granted by this Order applies to all current and future properties, operations, marketing, advertising, and business activities of Defendant Coral Verimark Resorts LLC, wherever located, including but not limited to the property currently under development at 1025 Emerald Coast Parkway, Destin, Florida 32541. Defendant is hereby enjoined from opening, operating, marketing, advertising, or promoting any resort, hotel, hospitality property, or lodging service under the infringing marks "VERIMARK RESORTS," "VR Verimark," or any other mark, name, or designation that incorporates the term "VERIMARK" or any confusingly similar variation thereof.
6. Bond. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), Plaintiff Verimark Hospitality Group Inc. shall post a bond in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) as security for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by Defendant Coral Verimark Resorts LLC if it is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. Plaintiff shall post such bond within seven (7) business days of entry of this Order. The bond shall be maintained with the Clerk of Court for the duration of the preliminary injunction. The Court has considered the likely costs and damages that Defendant might sustain if the injunction is later determined to have been wrongfully issued and finds that this amount is adequate and appropriate in light of the strength of Plaintiff's showing on the merits and the nature of the relief granted.
7. Preservation of Evidence. Defendant shall preserve and maintain, and shall not destroy, delete, alter, conceal, or dispose of, all documents, records, communications (whether in electronic or physical form), financial records, accounting records, invoices, receipts, contracts, marketing materials, advertising materials, customer lists, reservation records, correspondence, emails, text messages, instant messages, social media communications, and any other evidence or materials of any kind relating to: (a) Defendant's use of the marks "VERIMARK RESORTS," "VR Verimark," or any variation thereof; (b) Defendant's adoption, development, selection, and design of its marks; (c) Defendant's revenues, profits, costs, and expenses associated with the infringing marks; and (d) any instances of consumer confusion of which Defendant is aware. This obligation shall remain in effect throughout the pendency of this action and shall apply to all such materials in the possession, custody, or control of Defendant, its officers, members, managers, employees, agents, and representatives.
8. Continued Jurisdiction. This Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Order, to modify or dissolve this Order upon proper motion and a sufficient showing, and to hold any person or entity in contempt for violation of any provision of this Order. Nothing in this Order shall limit the ability of either party to move for modification, clarification, or dissolution of this Order based upon changed circumstances or other appropriate grounds.
9. Effect on TTAB Proceeding. This Order is without prejudice to the rights and obligations of either party in the related proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Opposition No. 91/287,456, concerning United States Trademark Application Serial No. 98/432,117 filed by Defendant. Nothing in this Order shall be construed to constitute a final adjudication on the merits of any claim or defense raised in this action or in the TTAB proceeding, or to limit the authority of the TTAB to adjudicate the opposition proceeding pending before it.
10. Service of Order. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order upon Defendant Coral Verimark Resorts LLC and its counsel of record, Natasha K. Okonkwo, Alcántara Reeves LLP, 200 Las Olas Circle, Suite 700, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301, within two (2) business days of entry. Plaintiff shall thereafter file a certificate of service with the Court confirming such service.
DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this _ day of _____, 2025.
________________________________________
HON. ADRIENNE M. CASTELLANO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
SUBMITTED BY:
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
By: ________
Marcus Delgado (FL Bar No. 0087412) Catherine Bloom (FL Bar No. 0093758) Peter Vassiliev (FL Bar No. 0124603) Wendy Schultz (FL Bar No. 0131289)
400 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3200 Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 555-4800 Facsimile: (305) 555-4801
Email: mdelgado@calderwoodharkness.com
Email: cbloom@calderwoodharkness.com
Email: pvassiliev@calderwoodharkness.com
Email: wschultz@calderwoodharkness.com
Counsel for Plaintiff Verimark Hospitality Group Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

III. ORDER

SUBMITTED BY:

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts