complaint summit series vs. paddy cosgrave and web summit

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Michael J. McCue (NV Bar No. 6055) [email protected] Jonathan W. Fountain (NV Bar No. 10351) [email protected] LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER LLP 3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 600 Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996 Telephone: (702) 949-8200 Facsimile: (702) 949-8398 Vijay K. Toke (Cal. Bar No. 215079) [email protected] Will comply with LR IA 10-2 within 45 days Amanda R. Conley (Cal. Bar No. 281270) [email protected] Will comply with LR IA 10-2 within 45 days COBALT LLP 918 Parker Street Bldg. A21 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 841-9800 Facsimile: (510) 295-2401 Attorneys for Plaintiff THE SUMMIT SERIES, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

The Summit Series, LLC, a District of Columbia limited liability company,

Plaintiff, vs. Web Summit Services Limited, an Ireland corporation; Dublin Web Summit Limited, an Ireland corporation; Patrick Cosgrave, an individual; and DOES 1 100,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:14-cv-0737 COMPLAINT

(JURY DEMAND)

Plaintiff The Summit Series, LLC (hereinafter Summit or Plaintiff), by and through its

attorneys, alleges personal knowledge or information and belief as the basis for the following

allegations:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action for common law trademark infringement, false designation of

origin and unfair competition, and trafficking in a domain name confusingly similar to a trademark

Case 2:14-cv-00737-RFB-VCF Document 1 Filed 05/12/14 Page 1 of 23

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

arising under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), 1125(d) (False Designation

of Origin, unfair competition, Cybersquatting), deceptive trade practices arising out of NRS

598.0915, and unfair competition under Nevada common law.

2. Claims I and II of this Complaint aver that Defendants have infringed Summits

SUMMIT and SUMMIT SERIES trademarks and engaged in unfair competition pursuant to 15

U.S.C. 1125(a) and under the common law.

3. Claim III of this complaint avers that Defendants have trafficked in a domain name

confusingly similar to a trademark (cybersquatting) pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1125(d.)

4. Claims IV and V of this Complaint aver that Defendants have committed unfair

business practices under NRS 598.0915 and under the common law.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff The Summit Series, LLC is a District of Columbia limited liability

company incorporated on or about August 25, 2008, with its principal place of business at 1817 M

Street NW Washington, DC, 20036. Plaintiff has done and is doing business in the District of

Nevada. Plaintiff advertises and operates a well-known and well-respected invitation-only

conference, an event center, venture fund, charitable fundraising services, and think tank-like

residential community in connection with the trademarks SUMMIT and SUMMIT SERIES.

6. On information and belief, Defendant Web Summit Services Limited (Web

Summit Services) is an Ireland corporation with its principal place of business at Unit D, Mount

Pleasant Business Park, Mount Pleasant Avenue, Ranelagh, Dublin 6, Ireland. On information

and belief, Defendant Web Summit Services has done and continues to do substantial business in

the District of Nevada.

7. On information and belief, Defendant Dublin Web Summit Limited (Dublin Web

Summit) is an Ireland corporation, with its principal place of business at Unit D, Mount Pleasant

Business Centre, Mount Pleasant Avenue, Ranelagh, Dublin 6, Ireland. On information and

belief, Defendant Dublin Web Summit has done and continues to do substantial business in the

District of Nevada.

8. On information and belief, Defendant Patrick Cosgrave is an individual residing in


3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dublin, Ireland, Paris, France, and San Francisco, California. On information and belief, Mr.

Cosgrave has done and continues to do substantial business in the District of Nevada and

elsewhere in the United States. On information and belief, Defendant Cosgrave is an officer and

the majority shareholder of both Defendant Dublin Web Summit and Defendant Web Summit

Services.

9. On information and belief, and as further alleged below, Defendants, and each of

them, have done and are currently doing business under the name The Summit.

10. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of

Defendants Does 1 through 100 are presently unknown to Plaintiff, who, therefore, sues them by

such fictitious names. At such time as their true names and capacities have been ascertained,

Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint accordingly. On information and belief,

Plaintiff alleges that each of Does 1 through 100 was the agent, representative, or employee of

each of the other Defendants and was acting at all times within the scope of his, her, or its agency

or representative capacity, with the knowledge and consent of the other Defendants, and that each

of Does 1 through 100 are liable to Plaintiff in connection with one or more of the claims sued

upon here and are responsible in some manner for the wrongful acts and conduct alleged here.

11. On information and belief, at all relevant times each of the Defendants was the

agent, affiliate, owner, officer, director, manager, principal, alter-ego, co-conspirator, successor-

in-interest, insurer, indemnitor, supplier, dealer, and/or employee of the remaining Defendants and

was at all times acting within the scope of such agency, affiliation, alter-ego relationship,

conspiracy, successor, insurer, or indemnitor status, business relationship, and/or employment.

Further, on information and belief, each of the Defendants actively participated in or subsequently

ratified and adopted, or both, each and all of the acts or conduct alleged in this Complaint, with

full knowledge of all facts and circumstances, including, but not limited to, full knowledge of each

and every violation of Plaintiffs rights and the damages to Plaintiff.

JURISDICTION

12. This is a Complaint for common law trademark infringement, false designation of

origin, unfair competition, and trafficking in a domain name confusingly similar to a trademark


4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

arising under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), 1125(d) (False Designation

of Origin, Cybersquatting), deceptive trade practices arising out of NRS 598.0915, and unfair

competition under Nevada common law.

13. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and

1338(a) and the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1121).

14. Jurisdiction also arises as to the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. 1367(a)

pursuant to the principles of supplemental jurisdiction.

15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants by virtue of their transacting,

doing, and soliciting business in this District, because a substantial part of the relevant events

occurred in this District, and because Defendants have infringed, contributed to the infringement

of, actively induced others to infringe Plaintiffs trademarks in this District, and/or actively

participated in the acts and omissions described herein primarily in or directed toward Nevada and

the United States, as further alleged in this Complaint. Moreover, Defendants continue to

infringe, contribute to the infringement of, and/or actively induce others to infringe Plaintiffs

SUMMIT and SUMMIT SERIES trademarks in this District and the United States, as well as to

commit the other violations of the law alleged herein. In addition, on information and belief,

Defendant Cosgrave lives part-time in the United States, in San Francisco, California and does

substantial business in this District and throughout the United States.

VENUE

16. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. 1391 because a substantial

portion of the events giving rise to this action occurred in this District. On information and belief,

the infringement has occurred and continues to occur within this District, Defendants have entered

into contracts within this District with entities located in this District, Defendants have advertised

and are advertising and hosting a conference in this District on Tuesday, May 13, 2014 and

Wednesday, May 14, 2014, and Defendants are therefore subject to personal jurisdiction in this

District.

///

///


5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

The founding of SUMMIT and SUMMIT Series

17. Summit is the owner of common law trademark rights to the marks SUMMIT and

SUMMIT SERIES for charitable and other related educational services, venture funding,

charitable services, and real property. Specifically, Summit offers conferences and networking

events aimed at bringing successful entrepreneurs and influencers together to share ideas, give

back to society, and explore potential solutions to global problems. Today, Summit, through itself

and related companies licensing its marks, also provides venture funding to innovative companies,

charitable giving services to non-profit initiatives focused on revolutionizing social change, and

the opportunity to purchase real property in a one-of-a-kind residential community centered on

fostering innovative thinking and social good.

18. Though today it enjoys substantial worldwide notoriety and pursues numerous lofty

purposes, Plaintiffs organization emerged from humble beginnings. Plaintiffs founder, Elliott

Bisnow, through Plaintiff The Summit Series, LLC, began the SUMMIT SERIES in 2008 with

three other founders as a way to create a community amongst startup entrepreneurs. Then 22, Mr.

Bisnow was running a successful family-owned advertising company. Not surprisingly, as a

young person running a company, Mr. Bisnow had myriad questions on how to run his business,

from the everydayhow to address basic human resources issuesto the more strategichow to

position his company vis--vis his competitors. Mr. Bisnow, however, did not have a community

of similarly situated entrepreneurs to bounce ideas and questions off of. So he decided to create

one.

19. Mr. Bisnows epiphany was to create an invitation-only networking event for high-

profile, similarly situated young entrepreneurs to get together, have fun, share ideas, and do good

public works. And that is exactly what he did, inviting other successful young entrepreneurs for a

ski trip to Utah. Mr. Bisnow did not have the capital to finance the initial event, so he paid for his

first attendees with credit cards.

20. The first SUMMIT SERIES event included 19 attendees from all over the United

States. Amongst the first attendees were the founders of a popular video-sharing platform, a


6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

premier mens digital lifestyle brand, and a well-known shoe designer. The idea behind the

conference was to bring young, successful entrepreneurs together to share ideas, get to know each

better, build a community of like-minded people, and ponder ways to not only improve their

businesses and network but to make positive change in society.

21. The first SUMMIT SERIES event was a smash hit. The concept and the new

SUMMIT SERIES brand drew immediate attention. Before long, Plaintiffs events had attracted

some of the countrys most well respected entrepreneurs. By mid-2009, just months after the first

SUMMIT SERIES conference, the invite-only members included a founder of Facebook, the then

CEO of Twitter, and the chief executive of Zappos (a well-known online retailer subsequently

purchased by Amazon for $1.2 billion). Within the first six months of its existence Summit had

even gained enough brand recognition that the Obama Administration contacted Summit and

invited it to bring attendees of SUMMIT SERIES events to the White House to provide their

insights on entrepreneurship and the economy. Summit delivered, gathering some of the countrys

most well known young entrepreneurs to speak with White House advisors.

22. By mid-2009, Plaintiffs SUMMIT SERIES events and brand had become so well

known that they gained the attention of the New York Times. Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of

the July 9, 2009 New York Times article describing the SUMMIT SERIES conference. Since then,

Plaintiffs SUMMIT SERIES conferences and its various initiatives under its house brand

SUMMIT have been featured in literally hundreds of articles in various famous publications, such

as the New York Times, The Economist, Forbes, The Huffington Post, Business Week, Fast

Company, Business Insider, and Mens Health. Attached as Exhibits B through S is a

representative sample of articles relating to Plaintiffs SUMMIT SERIES conferences and events.

23. Barely two years into its existence, the SUMMIT SERIES conference was known

worldwide. Its multiple annual events drew highly successful CEOs from various technology

companies and other influential people as both speakers and attendees, each paying their way to

attend. For example, by May 2010, Plaintiffs SUMMIT SERIES featured such famous speakers

as former President of the United States, Bill Clinton, and Ted Turner. By late 2011, the

SUMMIT SERIES conference was recognized as one of the Top 5 events for young entrepreneurs.


7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In fact, Forbes magazine dubbed Plaintiffs SUMMIT SERIES conference the Davos of

Generation Y and, when speaking of the SUMMIT SERIES conference, asked rhetorically Do

you know of a more influential networking event for a new generation of geniuses? If so, let me

know. Attached as Exhibit T is a true and correct copy of the November 20, 2010 Forbes article

entitled Names You Need to Know in 2011: Summit Series. Being invited to a SUMMIT

SERIES conference had become a metric for whether a young entrepreneur had become a success.

And everyone, from young up-and-coming entrepreneurs to gurus in every type of business, gladly

paid the registration fees to be a part of the community gathered by Plaintiff.

24. The fame and notoriety of Plaintiffs SUMMIT SERIES events and related

initiatives under its SUMMIT brand continued to grow with each successive year. By May 2011,

Fast Company magazine listed Plaintiffs SUMMIT SERIES conference as among the most

prestigious global conferences. The SUMMIT SERIES conference was held on a cruise ship in the

Caribbean. The 1000+ invite-only list of attendees included numerous famous entrepreneurs, such

as billionaire Richard Branson of Virgin fame, music moguls like Russell Simmons, hoteliers like

Chip Conley of Joie de Vivre Hotels, authors and influencers like Tim Ferriss of The 4-Hour Body

and The 4-Hour Workweek fame, Silicon Valley legends like Peter Thiel (co-founder of PayPal

and early investor in Facebook), and Peter Diamandis (the founder of the X Prize Foundation), as

well as hundreds of other successful individuals from non-profit visionaries to wine-industry

iconoclasts to venture capitalists. The ability to attract to its SUMMIT SERIES conference such

accomplished people from such a broad spectrum of industries caused one reporter covering the

2011 conference to describe the attendees as the most impressive people I have come across in

my life. Attached as Exhibit U is a true and correct copy of an online article entitled What I

learned from Summit Series from the ShareThis blog.

25. Since its founding in 2008, in addition to its annual SUMMIT SERIES conference,

Plaintiff has organized dozens of events throughout the United States, including in New York

City, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., Miami, Utah, and Lake Tahoe under the

SUMMIT SERIES and SUMMIT marks. Indeed, the strong brand identity and substantial

goodwill of Plaintiffs SUMMIT SERIES conferences and its ability to attract the highest echelon


8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

of participants from across the world allowed Plaintiff to add additional services under its

SUMMIT brand. For example, Plaintiff and companies affiliated with it now offer venture

funding to innovative companies solving problems with technological solutions and charitable

giving services to groundbreaking non-profit organizations, all under the SUMMIT mark. Indeed,

SUMMIT venture and charitable initiatives, as well as SUMMIT SERIES events, have helped

raise millions of dollars for non-profits and businesses alike. Plaintiff and its SUMMIT and

SUMMIT SERIES marks have become known not only a premier networking event organizer, but

also as a company that identifies and invests in the worlds most innovative new businesses and

non-profits.

26. In another expansion of its strong brand identity as a conference organizer and

place for influential and innovative thinkers to gather, Plaintiff, through a related company,

purchased 10,000 acres and a ski resort in Eden, Utah with the goal of building a unique

residential development for members of the SUMMIT and SUMMIT SERIES conference

community to come together, share ideas, and spend time with other community members.

27. Plaintiff describes its various initiatives and events under the SUMMIT and

SUMMIT SERIES marks at its website located at www.summit.co. Plaintiffs principals

registered the domain name in February, 2010 and have operated Plaintiffs website from that

URL since that time. The .co top level domain name is the top level domain for the country of

Colombia and is not a typical top level domain chosen by companies, such as .com, .net, .org, etc.

Attached as Exhibit V are webpages from Plaintiffs website located at www.summit.co.

Defendant Cosgrave visits Plaintiffs principals and discusses a partnership to hold SUMMIT

SERIES and SUMMIT events in Europe

28. Defendant Patrick Cosgrave is a serial entrepreneur located in Dublin, Ireland

(though he claims to also live in Paris, France, and San Francisco, California). Cosgrave had been

invited by Plaintiff to participate in SUMMIT SERIES events in or about 2009. In January 2010,

after a recent exit from a company he had been involved in, Cosgrave spent several days with the

principals of Plaintiff in Montana, where they were living for a month while developing the

SUMMIT SERIES conference to take place in Washington D.C. later in 2010.


9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29. During his time with Plaintiffs principals in Montana, Cosgrave was impressed

with the following and brand recognition Summit had garnered in such a short period of time and

indicated he was interested in partnering with Summit to conduct SUMMIT SERIES events in

Europe. He claimed to have significant connections in Europe and offered to exploit those

connections to help Plaintiff further develop the SUMMIT SERIES brand in Europe.

30. Plaintiff and Cosgrave shared numerous e-mails in which they discussed a potential

partnership. Throughout these discussions, Plaintiffs principals and Cosgrave himself

consistently referred to Plaintiffs conference as SUMMIT SERIES, or the SUMMIT for short. It

was clear to Cosgrave that Summit offered its services under the SUMMIT and SUMMIT SERIES

marks and that the marks had gained tremendous brand value and recognition in the United States

and globally.

31. Ultimately, Plaintiff and Cosgrave decided not to partner together, though

Cosgrave indicated he would continue to work on his plans to organize a technology conference in

Dublin, Ireland. Cosgrave understood that he could not use the SUMMIT or SUMMIT SERIES

marks to do so.

Defendants systematically, in bad faith, encroach on Plaintiffs trademark rights by changing

their name from DUBLIN WEB SUMMIT to WEB SUMMIT to, very recently, THE SUMMIT

32. In late 2010, Cosgrave went forward with his plans to organize a tech conference in

Dublin, Ireland. Cosgrave formed a company, Defendant Dublin Web Summit Limited, through

which he offered his tech conference event. Cosgrave and Defendant Dublin Web Summit offered

the first event in or about October 2010 under the name DUBLIN WEB SUMMIT. Cosgraves

DUBLIN WEB SUMMIT events targeted many of the same attendees as Plaintiffs SUMMIT

SERIES events and even invited many of the same speakers. Defendants Cosgrave and Dublin

Web Summit operated a website describing the conference located at

www.dublinwebsummit.com, which is still registered today to Defendant Patrick Cosgrave.

33. Defendants Cosgrave and Dublin Web Summit offered their events under the name

DUBLIN WEB SUMMIT in 2010 and 2011. In 2012, they re-branded the conference, calling it

simply WEB SUMMIT. Defendant Cosgrave formed a second company, Defendant Web Summit


10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Services, in or about June 2012, through which he offered WEB SUMMIT events. Defendants

continued to offer their WEB SUMMIT conference in 2012 and late 2013 under the name WEB

SUMMIT and operated a website located at www.websummit.net, which is still registered to

Defendant Cosgrave today.

34. Without ever contacting or seeking authorization from Plaintiffand despite

firsthand knowledge of Plaintiffs strong brand recognition in their marks SUMMIT and

SUMMIT SERIES in the United States and worldwideDefendants once again changed the name

of their competing business in early 2014, this time to THE SUMMIT, a mark virtually identical

to Plaintiffs SUMMIT and SUMMIT SERIES marks. On January 24, 2014, Defendants changed

their Twitter handle from @websummitHQ to @thesummitHQ. In the same timeframe,

Defendants changed their Facebook page from WebSummit to The Summit. Cosgrave, acting

on behalf of himself and the other Defendants, registered the domain name www.thesummit.co in

his name on or about February 4, 2014. Though his www.dublinwebsummit.com and

www.websummit.net used the very common .com and .net top level domains, on information and

belief, Cosgrave intentionally chose to use the unusual Colombia .co top level domain name for

his bad-faith rebranding to THE SUMMIT, choosing a domain name that is practically

indistinguishable from Plaintiffs www.summit.co domain name for a website offering competing

services.

35. Cosgraves www.thesummit.co website describes the conferences he has organized

under the mark THE SUMMIT, listing numerous attendees and sponsors of his conferences, many

of whom overlap with those of Plaintiffs events. Defendants website and Facebook page eschew

any mention of Cosgrave, or Defendants Dublin Web Summit or Web Summit Services. Instead,

they consistently refer only to the name THE SUMMIT and the notoriety it has received in the

press (even though such press actually related to events run under Defendants previous brands,

DUBLIN WEB SUMMIT and WEB SUMMIT), in an attempt to confuse consumers into

believing that Defendants events come from, are sponsored by, or are affiliated with Plaintiffs

company, which has been using the SUMMIT and SUMMIT SERIES marks since as early as

2008. Attached as Exhibit W are true and correct copies of webpages from Defendants


11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

www.thesummit.co website.

36. These changes by Defendants were no coincidence. With full awareness of the

substantial success and brand recognition enjoyed by Plaintiff for its SUMMIT and SUMMIT

SERIES events, Defendants purpose in changing their name sequentially from DUBLIN WEB

SUMMIT to WEB SUMMIT and finally to THE SUMMIT was to confuse consumers and to take

advantage of the goodwill Plaintiff had established in its SUMMIT and SUMMIT SERIES marks,

to pass off their competing events as Plaintiffs, and to attract high-profile attendees into believing

they were enrolling for events offered, affiliated with, or sponsored by Plaintiff. This attempt to

trade off of the consumer recognition of Plaintiffs marks constitutes intentional, bad faith

infringement of Plaintiffs marks.

37. Defendants have also actively deceptively advertised and promoted their

conferences under the mark THE SUMMIT to American consumers. For example, Defendants

have promoted their 2014 THE SUMMIT conference in Dublin, Ireland through Facebook and

other social media, specifically targeting American consumers. Attached as Exhibit X is a true

and correct copy of sponsored Facebook ads targeted to American consumers. These ads also

carefully avoid any mention of Defendants previous DUBLIN WEB SUMMIT or WEB

SUMMIT marks, instead adopting the confusingly similar THE SUMMIT mark.

38. Though Defendant Cosgrave is frequently in the United States to promote

Defendants business to American consumersand Cosgrave even claims San Francisco,

California as home in addition to Dublin, Ireland and Paris, FranceDefendants only recently

organized their first event in the United States, to take place on May 13 and 14, 2014 in Las

Vegas, Nevada. This event, dubbed the Collision Conference, not coincidentally coincided with

the Defendants recent rebranding to the name THE SUMMIT. Defendants have heavily

promoted this conference under the mark THE SUMMIT by, among other things, using the

deceptive phrase, a new conference brought to you by the team behind The Summit. Because

Defendants only recently adopted the name THE SUMMIT, the use of such phrasing, which

suggests the team behind The Summit has existed for some time, was meant to deceive

consumers into believing the Collision Conference was organized by Plaintiff, the owner of the


12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

much older (and well-recognized) SUMMIT and SUMMIT SERIES marks. Attached as Exhibit

Y are true and correct copies of web pages from Defendants Collision Conference website,

stating that the Collision Conference is being organized by The Summit. On information and

belief, Defendants will earn at least $1,000,000 from their Las Vegas conference alone.

39. Defendants activities, taken together, constitute a systematic, intentional, bad faith,

and willful infringement of Plaintiffs trademark rights. Defendants have adopted a mark, THE

SUMMIT, that is indistinguishable from Plaintiffs SUMMIT and SUMMIT SERIES marks for

highly similar services, marketed to the same consumers, through the same social media outlets,

and from a virtually identical domain name (www.thesummit.co versus www.summit.co) for

events in the United States and targeted to US consumers. Defendants have also used deceptive

language through their marketing outlets to intentionally and willfully deceive consumers into

believing that Defendants are in fact Plaintiff.

40. The near identity of the infringing mark adopted by Defendants, the strength of

Plaintiffs marks and consumers recognition of them, coupled with the registration and use of a

domain name indistinguishable from Plaintiffs, the similarities between the parties businesses,

consumers, and marketing outlets, and Defendants bad faith intent to infringe Plaintiffs Marks,

render consumer confusion very likely. Defendants attempts to deceive consumers have been

successful, as further alleged below, with many consumers contacting Plaintiff about Defendants

event in Las Vegas.

Defendants recent bad faith adoption of Plaintiffs marks has caused immediate actual

confusion amongst consumers

41. Significant instances of actual consumer confusion surfaced almost immediately

upon Defendants bad faith adoption of the nearly identical mark and the launch of their website at

the nearly identical URL. In just two months, Plaintiff has received at least 50 e-mails from

confused consumers. Some have inquired whether Defendants are related to Plaintiff. Another

confused consumer wrote to a principal of Plaintiff, stating excited to attend your event in

Vegas.Hope to see you there!, not realizing that he was actually attending Defendants THE

SUMMIT event in Las Vegas. Another consumer, after perusing Defendants website


13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

www.thesummit.co and believing it to be Plaintiffs website, wrote to a principal of Plaintiff: I

have seen this: http://thesummit.co/startups/alpha. This would be amazing for us. Is there a way

where we can collaborate? Still another consumer wrote to Plaintiff, indicating that he was

disappointed to find out (too late) that Defendants event in Las Vegas was not Plaintiffs event;

he had specifically purchased his ticket because he had thought it was for one of Plaintiffs events.

Examples of such consumer confusion caused by Defendants bad-faith adoption of THE

SUMMIT mark are rampant and growing in numbernearly every day Plaintiff receives more

communications from confused consumers.

Plaintiffs attempts to amicably resolve the dispute

42. From almost the moment Defendants adopted the confusingly similar name THE

SUMMIT, instances of actual consumer confusion arose, disrupting Plaintiffs business. Since

that time, Plaintiff has made numerous attempts to contact Defendants to discuss Defendants use

of the infringing mark THE SUMMIT. Plaintiff has indicated on multiple occasions to

Defendants that their adoption of the mark THE SUMMIT is causing regular confusion in the

marketplace. Defendants have refused to acknowledge any confusion or to change their name.

Instead, Defendants have ignored Plaintiffs repeated inquiries since February 2014, or put

Plaintiff off, while continuing to use the mark THE SUMMIT without Plaintiffs authorization.

To date Defendants have not agreed to address the infringement alleged herein or to avoid the

likelihood and actual consumer confusion resulting from Defendants infringement. Despite over

two months of attempts to negotiate an amicable resolution of this matter with Defendants, and

with Defendants conference in the United States imminent with no resolution or mechanism to

avoid the growing consumer confusion, Plaintiff was left with no choice but to file this action to

enforce its rights and protect the public from further consumer confusion.

Count I - Common Law Trademark Infringement

43. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates each of the allegations in the preceding

paragraphs of this Complaint by reference as if fully set forth herein.

44. Plaintiff has established common law rights in its marks SUMMIT and SUMMIT

SERIES through extensive and continued use of the marks in connection with conferences and


14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

networking events, venture funding services, charitable giving services and philanthropy, and real

property.

45. Defendants have used in commerce and without Plaintiffs authorization or consent

the mark THE SUMMIT for conferences and networking events, which is functionally identical to

the common law trademark rights that Plaintiff owns in its SUMMIT and SUMMIT SERIES

marks for conferences and networking events, as well as the other services offered by Plaintiff.

46. Defendants acts alleged herein and specifically (without limitation) their use of the

THE SUMMIT mark infringe Summits exclusive trademark rights in the SUMMIT and

SUMMIT SERIES marks in connection with conferences and networking events and its other

services and goods, in violation of the common law.

47. Defendants common law infringement of Plaintiffs SUMMIT and SUMMIT

SERIES trademarks has caused, and will continue to cause if not enjoined, irreparable and

continuing harm to Plaintiffs SUMMIT mark, its business, reputation, and goodwill, for which

Summit has no adequate remedy at law.

48. As a result of Defendants acts alleged herein, Summit has incurred damages in an

amount to be proven at trial consisting of, among other things, the diminution in the value and

goodwill associated with its SUMMIT and SUMMIT SERIES marks, lost sales, and Defendants

profits attributable to the infringement, all in an amount to be proven at trial, but no less than

$2,000,000.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief and judgment in its favor as set forth below.

Count II - False Designation of Origin/Unfair Competition, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)

49. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the previous paragraphs of

this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

50. Defendants unlawful use, directly, through, and/or in conjunction with their

subsidiaries, affiliated companies, and/or licensees as alleged herein of the mark THE SUMMIT in

connection with conferences and networking events is a false and misleading designation of origin

and a false and misleading representation of facts, which:

a. is likely to cause consumer confusion, or to cause mistake or to deceive as to


15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the affiliation, connection, or association of Defendants with Plaintiff, or as to

the origin, sponsorship, or approval of Defendants goods or commercial

activities by Plaintiff; and/or

b. in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresent the nature,

characteristics, or qualities of Defendants goods, services, or commercial

activities.

51. Defendants acts, directly, through, and/or in conjunction with their subsidiaries,

affiliate companies, and/or their licensees as alleged herein, are in violation of 15 U.S.C.

1125(a), and Plaintiff is likely to be damaged and has been, by these acts. Thus Defendants are

liable for false designation of origin and unfair competition directly, vicariously, and/or

contributorily. Because the infringement alleged herein was intentional, willful, malicious, and

done with full knowledge of Plaintiffs SUMMIT and SUMMIT SERIES trademarks, and with the

intent to trade on the goodwill therein and cause consumer confusion and deception, this action

constitutes an exceptional case within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. 1117. Accordingly, Plaintiff is

entitled to exemplary damages, attorneys fees, costs, and pre-judgment interest as authorized by

the Lanham Act.

52. As a result of Defendants acts alleged herein, Plaintiff has incurred damages in an

amount to be proven at trial, but not less than $2,000,000, consisting of, among other things, the

diminution in the value and goodwill associated with its SUMMIT and SUMMIT SERIES marks,

lost sales, and Defendants profits attributable to the infringement.


Count III - Cybersquatting, 15 U.S.C. 1125(d)



54. Plaintiff owns a registration for the domain name , which is

accessible in the United States and worldwide. Plaintiff has operated and continues to operate a

website located at this domain since at least as early as February 25, 2010 (Plaintiffs Website).

Beginning on or around February 25, 2010 and on an ongoing basis, Plaintiff has advertised and


16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

continues to advertise its conferences and networking events and other services on Plaintiffs

Website in connection with the marks SUMMIT and SUMMIT SERIES.

55. Defendants own a registration for the domain name , which

is accessible in the United States and worldwide (Defendants Website). On information and

belief, Defendants have operated and continue to operate a website located at this domain since

early 2014. Beginning at that time, and on an ongoing basis, Defendants have used and continue

to use the THE SUMMIT trademark on Defendants Website in connection with conferences and

networking events.

56. Upon information and belief, Defendants have a bad faith intent to profit from the

registration and use of the domain name by creating an association with

Plaintiffs SUMMIT and SUMMIT SERIES marks that implies that Defendants business and

business activities are sponsored, endorsed by, or otherwise affiliated with Plaintiff.

57. The top-level domain name portions of the thesummit.co and the summit.co are

identical.

58. The second-level domain name portion of the domain name

entirely incorporates and is confusingly similar to Plaintiffs SUMMIT trademark. Plaintiffs and

Defendants second-level domain names differ only by the inclusion of the three-letter word the

in Defendants domain name. On information and belief, the choice by Defendants of the .co top-

level domain (which is unusual for non-Colombian websites) and a functionally identical second-

level domain was intentional, in bad faith, and aimed at confusing consumers into thinking they

had reached Plaintiffs website when in fact they had reached Defendants website.

59. Defendants acts directly, through, and/or in conjunction with their subsidiaries,

affiliate companies, and/or their licensees as alleged herein, are in violation of the

Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act under Section 43(d) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.

1125(d).

60. Defendants registration, ownership, and operation of a website at a domain name

that entirely incorporates and is confusingly similar to Plaintiffs SUMMIT and SUMMIT

SERIES trademarks and to Plaintiffs domain name has caused, and will continue to cause if not


17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

enjoined, irreparable and continuing harm to The Summits SUMMIT mark, its business,

reputation, and goodwill, for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

61. As a result of Defendants acts alleged herein, Plaintiff has incurred damages in an

amount to be proven at trial consisting of, among other things, the diminution in the value and

goodwill associated with its SUMMIT and SUMMIT SERIES marks, lost sales, and Defendants

profits attributable to the infringement, all in an amount to be proven at trial, but not less than

$2,000,000. As a result of Defendants acts as alleged in this complaint, Plaintiff is also entitled to

transfer to Plaintiff of Defendants www.thesummit.co domain name, as authorized by 15 U.S.C.

1125(d)(1)(C).


Count IV - Deceptive Trade Practices Under Nevada Law, N.R.S. 598.0915



63. Plaintiff has used its SUMMIT and SUMMIT SERIES marks since at least 2008 to

identify its unique brand of goods and services including, without limitation, conferences and

networking events, venture funding services, charitable giving services, and real property, and to

distinguish its unique services and goods from those made and sold by others, by, among other

things, prominently displaying the SUMMIT and SUMMIT SERIES marks in connection with the

offering of Plaintiffs goods and services.

64. Plaintiff has prominently displayed its SUMMIT and SUMMIT SERIES marks on

its www.summit.co website, on letterhead, in email signature blocks, on bills, on marketing and

advertising materials, in invitations to conference invitees, at its conferences and in its conference

materials, in brochures, in digital media, on signage, and in periodicals distributed throughout the

United States.

65. Plaintiffs goods, services, and advertising have been distributed and offered in the

trade area in the United States and in the State of Nevada where Defendants are doing business.

66. As a result of Plaintiffs sales and advertising under its SUMMIT and SUMMIT

SERIES marks and as a result of its use of the SUMMIT mark in connection with its


18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

www.summit.com Internet domain name and websites, Plaintiffs SUMMIT and SUMMIT

SERIES marks have developed and acquired a secondary and distinctive trademark meaning to

purchasers in Defendants trading area, which includes the United States and the State of Nevada.

67. Plaintiffs SUMMIT and SUMMIT SERIES marks have come to indicate to

purchasers of conferences and networking events, venture funding services, charitable giving

services, and real property, a meaning of high and unsurpassed quality originating only with

Plaintiff.

68. As a result of the association by purchasers of the SUMMIT and SUMMIT

SERIES marks with Plaintiff, Defendants said use of the confusingly similar WEB SUMMIT and

THE SUMMIT marks, the confusingly similar thesummit.co domain name, as well as Defendants

use of the confusingly similar @thesummitHQ Twitter handle and The Summit Facebook page

are likely to cause confusion of said purchasers.

69. The Defendants use of marks confusingly similar to Plaintiffs SUMMIT and

SUMMIT SERIES marks in commerce has, at all times, been willful, deliberate, knowing, and

intentional. The Defendants use of marks confusingly similar to Plaintiffs SUMMIT and

SUMMIT SERIES marks in commerce was designed to usurp and wrongfully trade off of the

substantial investment and goodwill Plaintiff has developed in its SUMMIT and SUMMIT

SERIES marks.


SUMMIT SERIES marks constitutes unfair trade practices as set forth in NRS 598.0915,

inasmuch as the Defendants have: (a) knowingly passed off their goods and/or services for sale as

those of Plaintiff; (b) knowingly made false representations as to the source, sponsorship,

approval, or certification of their goods and/or services by Plaintiff; and (c) knowingly made a

false representation as to an affiliation, connection, association with, or certification by Plaintiff.

71. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants conduct, Plaintiff has suffered, and

will continue to suffer, monetary loss and irreparable injury to its business, reputation, and

goodwill.



19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Count V - Common Law Unfair Competition



73. Plaintiff has used its SUMMIT and SUMMIT SERIES marks since at least 2008 to

identify its unique brand of goods and services including, without limitation, conferences and

networking events, venture funding services, charitable giving services, and real property, and to

distinguish its unique services and goods from those made and sold by others, by, among other

things, prominently displaying the SUMMIT and SUMMIT SERIES marks in connection with the

offering of Plaintiffs goods and services.

74. Plaintiff has prominently displayed its SUMMIT and SUMMIT SERIES marks on

its www.summit.co website, on letterhead, in email signature blocks, on bills, on marketing and

advertising materials, in invitations to conference invitees, at its conferences and in its conference

materials, in brochures, in digital media, on signage, and in periodicals distributed throughout the

United States.

75. Plaintiffs goods, services, and advertising have been distributed and offered in the

trade area in the United States and in the State of Nevada where Defendants are doing business.

76. As a result of Plaintiffs sales and advertising under its SUMMIT and SUMMIT

SERIES marks and as a result of its use of the SUMMIT mark in connection with its

www.summit.com Internet domain name and websites, Plaintiffs SUMMIT and SUMMIT

SERIES marks have developed and acquired a secondary and distinctive trademark meaning to

purchasers in Defendants trading area, which includes the United States and the State of Nevada.

77. Plaintiffs SUMMIT and SUMMIT SERIES marks have come to indicate to

purchasers of conferences and networking events, venture funding services, charitable giving

services, and real property, a meaning of high and unsurpassed quality originating only with

Plaintiff.

78. As a result of the association by purchasers of the SUMMIT and SUMMIT

SERIES marks with Plaintiff, Defendants said use of the confusingly similar WEB SUMMIT and

THE SUMMIT marks, the confusingly similar thesummit.co domain name, as well as Defendants


20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

use of the confusingly similar @thesummitHQ Twitter handle and The Summit Facebook page

are likely to cause confusion of said purchasers.


SUMMIT SERIES marks in commerce has, at all times, been willful, deliberate, knowing, and

intentional. The Defendants use of marks confusingly similar to Plaintiffs SUMMIT and

SUMMIT SERIES marks in commerce was designed to usurp and wrongfully trade off of the

substantial investment and goodwill Plaintiff has developed in its SUMMIT and SUMMIT

SERIES marks.


SUMMIT SERIES marks constitutes unfair competition under the common law of the State of

Nevada.

81. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants conduct, Plaintiff has suffered, and

will continue to suffer, monetary loss and irreparable injury to its business, reputation, and

goodwill.


PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows as to Defendants with respect to

each claim for relief:

1. An adjudication that Defendants have willfully and in bad faith infringed Plaintiffs

SUMMIT and SUMMIT SERIES service marks under the common law;

2. An adjudication that Defendants are liable for false designation of origin and unfair

competition in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a);

3. An adjudication that Defendants are liable for cybersquatting under 15 U.S.C.

1125(d);

4. A grant of permanent injunction enjoining Defendants and each of their agents,

servants, employees, principals, officers, attorneys, successors, assignees, and all those in active

concert or participation with them, including related individuals and entities, customers,

representatives, marketing and advertising agencies, dealers, suppliers, and distributors from:


21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a. Further infringing of Plaintiffs SUMMIT and SUMMIT SERIES

trademarks for conferences and networking events, venture capital services,

and charitable giving and philanthropic services by marketing, advertising,

promoting, offering for sale, or selling tickets to any conferences or

networking events offered in connection with the mark THE SUMMIT, or

any confusingly similar trademark, service mark, or designation in any

manner or place worldwide, including through Defendants website located

at www.thesummit.co, or any URL with a confusingly similar name;

b. Engaging in any other activity constituting unfair competition with Plaintiff,

or constituting an infringement of any of Plaintiffs trademarks or of

Plaintiffs rights in, or to use or to exploit said trademarks, or constituting

any injury to or dilution of any of Plaintiffs names, reputation, or goodwill;

c. Effecting assignments or transfers, forming new entities or associations or

using any other device with the purpose of circumventing or otherwise

avoiding the prohibitions set forth in Subparagraphs a through b;

d. Secreting, destroying, altering, removing, or otherwise dealing with its

infringing advertising and promotional materials or any records that may

contain any information relating to the developing, producing, selling,

marketing, offering for sale, advertising, and/or promoting of all conference

and networking events infringing any of Plaintiffs marks; and

e. From aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in

infringing upon any of Plaintiffs trademarks.

5. Directing that Defendants deliver for destruction all infringing promotional

materials and related advertisements, labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, and receptacles in

their possession or under their control bearing any of Plaintiffs trademarks or words confusingly

similar to Plaintiffs trademarks, or any simulation, reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable

imitation thereof.

6. Directing that Defendants transfer the domain name www.thesummit.co to


22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff.

7. Directing that Defendants report to this Court within thirty (30) days after a

Permanent Injunction is entered to show its compliance with paragraphs 2 through 6 above.

8. Directing such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate to prevent the trade

and public from gaining the erroneous impression that Plaintiff authorized or is related in any way

to any services offered, sold, or otherwise promoted by Defendants.

9. An accounting of all damages sustained by Plaintiff as a result of Defendants acts

alleged herein;

10. Awarding to Plaintiff from Defendants willful acts alleged herein three times its

damages therefrom and three times Defendants profits therefrom, after an accounting, pursuant to

15 U.S.C. 1125(a) and 1117.

11. An award to Plaintiff of actual damages sufficient to compensate Plaintiff for

Defendants acts of trademark infringement, together with prejudgment interest;

12. An award of Plaintiffs costs of suit, reasonable attorneys fees, and disbursements

in this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117 or as otherwise permitted by law, due to the

exceptional nature of Defendants acts in this case.

13. An award of punitive damages to Plaintiff for Defendants willful acts of unfair

competition under NRS 598.0915 and under the common law.

14. Any further relief that this Court deems just and proper.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///


23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury for all claims for relief herein on all issues that are

properly triable to a jury. Dated: May 12, 2014 By: /s/ Vijay K. Toke

Vijay K. Toke (Cal. Bar No. 215079) [email protected] Will comply with LR IA 10-2 within 45 days Amanda R. Conley (Cal. Bar No. 281270) [email protected] Will comply with LR IA 10-2 within 45 days COBALT LLP 918 Parker Street Bldg. A21 Berkeley, CA 94710 Michael J. McCue (NV Bar No. 6055) [email protected] Jonathan W. Fountain (NV Bar No. 10351) [email protected] LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER LLP 3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 600 Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996 Attorneys for Plaintiff THE SUMMIT SERIES, LLC


complaint summit series vs. paddy cosgrave and web summit

Documents

trademarks summit

summits summit

summit series trademarks

unfair business practices

nevada common law

unfair competition pursuant

substantial business

principal place of business