UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. KAYAK Software Corporation, by its attorneys, Foley & Lardner LLP, for its Complaint

Similar documents
Case 1:16-cv BLW Document 1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION. Defendant. JURY DEMANDED PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE EASTERN DISTRICT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Case: 3:14-cv DAK Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/14/14 1 of 13. PageID #: 1

Case 2:13-cv RJS-EJF Document 2 Filed 08/27/13 Page 1 of 21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) I. PARTIES

Case 1:14-cv REB-KLM Document 1 Filed 10/03/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case Doc 1 Filed 10/06/09 Entered 10/06/09 18:33:53 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION COMPLAINT

Case 4:15-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 11/12/15 Page 1 of 12

Filing Fee: $88.00 Category: A

Courtesy of

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE RELIEF. Plaintiff, Defendants. I INTRODUCTION

Case 1:15-cv JCB Document 1 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 30 :IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ) COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION

Case 2:13-cv LKK-CKD Document 1 Filed 11/26/13 Page 1 of 14

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ADA. Case No.

Courthouse News Service

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 1:18-cv UA Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK INTRODUCTION

COMPLAINT FOR DESIGN PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES

Civil Action No. I* \Q ^\J bjo

CASE NO. COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Picheny Equestrian Enterprises, Inc. ("Picheny"), as and for its

Case 2:15-cv NBF Document 29 Filed 06/04/15 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 2:16-cv J Document 1 Filed 02/23/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR WILSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE

PlainSite. Legal Document. Washington Western District Court Case No. 2:11-cv Crossfit Inc. v. Moore et al. Document 1.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY WARREN CIRCUIT COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. LAVONDA JOHNSON, GREG JOHNSON AND JALYN SAVAGE

Case: 2:15-cv WOB-JGW Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/28/15 Page: 1 of 10 - Page ID#: 1

Case 7:17-cv RAJ Document 6 Filed 06/01/17 Page 1 of 12

Case 2:08-cv ROS Document 1 Filed 07/22/08 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

DC CAUSE NO.

Case 3:12-cv MAS-LHG Document 1 Filed 08/07/12 Page 1 of 12 PagelD: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA THIRD DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) INTRODUCTION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 4:13-cv KES Document 1 Filed 05/10/13 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO.

Case 1:18-cv RJS Document 2 Filed 05/24/18 Page 1 of 16

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON KING COUNTY I. PARTIES

CASE 0:17-cv JRT-TNL Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Defendants.

Case 3:10-cv HRH Document 1 Filed 05/28/10 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

smb Doc 217 Filed 01/08/19 Entered 01/08/19 11:54:14 Main Document Pg 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA Western Division. DEBBIE GREENWELL, Duncanville, AL CIVIL ACTION NO. Plaintiff, CV- -

Case 2:03-cv R -CT Document 28 Filed 03/15/04 Page 1 of 5

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY. Case No.

WOMEN'S NIGHT TUESDAY, APRIL 20TH 7:00PM - 9:00PM YOU'RE INVITED TO ATTEND EVENT INCLUDES:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA INDICTMENT INTRODUCTION. 1. Defendant DENNIS EARL HECKER, a resident of Minnesota,

Case: 1:14-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 07/18/14 Page 1 of 24 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Case 1:17-cv APM Document 1 Filed 09/27/17 Page 1 of 18. United States District Court District of Columbia

8/30/2018 3:03 PM 18CV38377

10/16/2017 1:51:20 PM 17CV45539 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

Case 9:11-cv DWM Document 64 Filed 06/21/11 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-CI- DIVISION Electronically Filed

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Hammer-Schlagen Stump Registers As Trademark

ATL L /15/2017 Pg 1 of 5 Trans ID: LCV

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO. Plaintiff,

For mutual consideration received, which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TBE DISTRICT OF COLORADO. Civil Action No. J '.!- ~~! '. :.~,.~:..:.. r '.' ~~::-.

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF WAYNE ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO. JOSEPH EHMAN, KRISTIN McINTOSH AND WILLIAM JOE BEAVER, Plaintiffs,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) STIPULATION AND NOTICE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 11/18/14 Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. Case No:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:17-cv DB Document 31 Filed 03/09/17 Page 1 of 7

Case 2:14-cv JJT Document 1-2 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Document hosted at

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

Arrowhead Lake Association Boat Registration Rules

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MARION Civil Department ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 05/03/18 Page 1 of 32 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.:

the Central Intelligence Agency s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Case 3:17-cv Document 1 Filed 02/17/17 Page 1 of 29

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 2:13-cv VAP-VBK Document 55 Filed 10/07/14 Page 1 of 47 Page ID #:690

Case 1:16-cv NLH-KMW Document 1 Filed 10/13/16 Page 1 of 15 PageID: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA. Case No. 1:08-CV-502. Plaintiff, ANSWER

World Boxing Council Consejo Mundial de Boxeo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

Case 1:13-cv JEB Document 20 Filed 05/15/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 11/29/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Transcription:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT KAYAK SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. HOTEL TONIGHT, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No.: 3:15-cv-450 COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED KAYAK Software Corporation, by its attorneys, Foley & Lardner LLP, for its Complaint against Hotel Tonight, Inc., alleges as follows: PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 1. KAYAK Software Corporation ( Plaintiff or KAYAK ) is a Delaware corporation, having an address at 7 Market Street, Stamford, Connecticut 06902. 2. Upon information and belief, Hotel Tonight, Inc. is a Delaware corporation having an address at 901 Market Street, Suite 310 San Francisco, California 94103. 3. This is an action for declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1121 and 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338. 4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because, as set forth more fully herein, it transacts substantial business within this State and this District and has threatened harm to KAYAK in this District. 5. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS KAYAK s Business and KAYAK s Trademark 6. KAYAK is one of the world s leading websites and mobile applications for comparing travel sites, flights, hotels and rental car services. 7. KAYAK s rights in its name and mark KAYAK date to 2004, when it first applied to register the name in the United States Patent and Trademark Office based on intent to use. 8. KAYAK commenced use of its name and mark KAYAK in 2006, and, since long prior to the acts at issue herein, had grown to its current status as one of the best known and most trusted websites and mobile applications in this country for comparing travel sites, flights, hotels and rental car services. 9. In connection with its services for comparing travel sites, flights, hotels and rental cars, KAYAK uses not only the name and trademark KAYAK, but also a distinctive orange KAYAK Logo and K Logo. 10. KAYAK currently now owns the following registrations for its name and mark KAYAK and its KAYAK Logo and K logo: MARK REGISTRATION NO. REGISTRATION DATE KAYAK 3209578 February 13, 2007 KAYAK 3110651 June 27, 2006 KAYAK 4608486 September 23, 2014 KAYAK.COM 3129154 August 15, 2006 KAYAK.COM 3410425 April 8, 2008

MARK REGISTRATION NO. REGISTRATION DATE 4067183 December 6, 2011 4608485 September 23, 2014 4300775 March 12, 2013 3855864 October 5, 2010 4608484 September 23, 2014 4300774 March 12, 2013 11. The foregoing registered marks are valid and subsisting, unrevoked and uncanceled, and KAYAK is the sole owner of all rights and good will in such names and marks. Hotel Tonight s Threats of Suit 12. KAYAK recently launched an updated feature to its mobile app, that, among other things, aids travelers seeking to find hotel rooms on a nightly basis in proximity to wherever they happen to be located. It describes the feature in a menu listing of the functional features of its app as Hotel for tonight.

13. The menu listing of the functional feature Hotel for tonight is always used together with the prominent KAYAK name and the KAYAK Logo and the K Logo. 14. Upon information and belief, Defendant offers and provides travel accommodation services both nationally and in this District under the name HOTEL TONIGHT and the following h/bed logo: 15. On February 25, 2015, Defendant sent to KAYAK s corporate parent, Priceline.com, Inc., a letter accusing KAYAK of infringing its claimed rights in the name Hotel Tonight. 16. Despite efforts since that date to try to settle the matter, Hotel Tonight has maintained its contention in increasingly threatening tones that KAYAK s use of the descriptive phrase Hotel for tonight infringes its claimed rights in the name Hotel Tonight, and the range of its complaints have expanded in scope. 17. Upon information and belief, Defendant owns no patent rights or other intellectual property rights in or to the functional feature of permitting travelers to locate hotels in their immediate locations and reserve rooms on a nightly basis. 18. The words Hotel for tonight as used by KAYAK describe a feature of KAYAK s mobile app of permitting travelers to locate hotels in their immediate locations and reserve rooms on a nightly basis.

19. Despite the threats made by Hotel Tonight, there is no likelihood that relevant consumers of the parties services are likely to be confused as to the source of origin of the parties respective travel accommodation services as a result of the common use of the descriptive words hotel and tonight, particularly given the prominent use by KAYAK of its well-known trademarks KAYAK, the KAYAK Logo and the K Logo in connection with such services. 20. KAYAK s use of the phrase Hotel for tonight is a permitted descriptive fair use in connection with such services of permitting travelers to locate hotels in their immediate locations and reserve rooms on a nightly basis, notwithstanding any rights Hotel Tonight may have in the descriptive phrase Hotel Tonight. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION [Declaratory Judgment] 21. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 20 as though fully set forth herein. 22. Defendant s threats that KAYAK s use of the phrase Hotel for tonight infringes its claimed rights in the name Hotel Tonight create a case of actual controversy within the jurisdiction of this Court as to the scope of the parties rights. 23. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment that its conduct as aforesaid, including its use of the term Hotel for tonight as part of its mobile app, infringes no rights of Defendant; and/or that its use of the term Hotel for tonight is a permitted fair use. 24. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

JURY DEMAND Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury as to all issues so triable in this action. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment against Defendant as follows: 1. Declaring that Plaintiff has infringed no rights of Defendant; and that Plaintiff s use of the term Hotel for tonight is a permitted fair use; and 2. Awarding Plaintiff its reasonable attorney s fees and costs of this action as provided by law, together with such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: March 27, 2015 Respectfully submitted, By: FOLEY & LARDNER LLP /s/ Richard J. Bernard Richard J. Bernard, Esq. Jonathan E. Moskin, Esq. (pro hac vice motion to be filed) 90 Park Avenue New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 682-7474 Facsimile: (212) 687-2329 Email: jmoskin@foley.com Email: rbernard@foley.com Attorneys for Plaintiff KAYAK Software Corporation