Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

THE CORYN GROUP II, LLC V. O.C. SEACRETS, INC.

* * * * * *

Civil No. WDQ-08-2764

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court are Defendant/Counter-Claim Plaintiff O.C. Seacrets, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Responses to Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition (Paper No. 67) and Defendant/Counter-Claim Plaintiff O.C. Seacrets, Inc.'s Third Motion to Compel Production of Documents Used to Prepare Witness for 30(b)(6) Deposition Directed to AMResorts, LLC (Paper No. 68). motions have been fully briefed. Both

The Court held a motions

hearing on October 30, 2009, after which the parties made supplemental filings. For the following reasons, the Court

GRANTS in part and DENIES in part O.C. Seacrets' Motion to Compel Responses to Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition (Paper No. 67), and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part O.C. Seacrets, Inc.'s Third Motion to Compel Production of Documents Used to Prepare Witness for 30(b)(6) Deposition Directed to AMResorts, LLC (Paper No. 68).

I.

BACKGROUND

1

This is a trademark infringement case that arises from the United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's (hereafter "TTAB") grant of O.C. Seacrets, Inc.'s petition to cancel Coryn Group's trademark registration for the mark "SECRETS." No. 67-2, 2). (Paper

Coryn Group, II, LLC, successor in interest to

Coryn Group, appealed to this Court, arguing that O.C. Seacrets' "SEACRETS" trademark, used in connection with restaurant and bar services, was confusingly similar to Coryn Group's trademark "SECRETS," used in the resort hotel industry. 2; Paper No. 67-2, 2). (Paper No. 1, 1-

O.C. Seacrets, Inc. counterclaimed on

the basis of "reverse confusion," claiming that Coryn Group II, LLC, a junior user, overwhelmed the market with its use of a confusingly similar mark that effectively devalued O.C. Seacrets's mark. (Paper No. 68-2, 2). AMResorts, LLC, a

company that appears to manage and develop resort hotels that are licensees of Coryn Group's "SECRETS" mark, is a third-party defendant. (Paper No. 67-2, 8). Coryn Group, Coryn Group II,

and AMResorts are all part of a complex organization of on- and off-shore businesses that are owned by various members of the Mullen family. (Paper No. 67-2, 3).

All claims and counterclaims in this case hinge on whether the two marks are likely to be confused, which depends on several factors including: (1) the strength or distinctiveness of the marks; (2) the similarity of the marks; (3) the 2

similarity of the goods and services the marks identify; (4) the similarity of the facilities the parties use in their businesses; (5) the similarity of advertising used by the parties; (6) the parties' intent; and (7) actual confusion. Pizzeria Uno Corp. v. Temple, 747 F.2d 1522, 1527 (4th Cir. 1984). Should the Court determine that any party's registered

trademark rights were violated, disgorgement of profits received as a result of that violation, among other damages, are appropriate. 15 U.S.C.

Download The Coryn Group II, LLC v. O.C. Seacrets, Inc..pdf

Maryland Law