Woman to Blame? Margaritaville Brand Fight Over Rights in Bahamas
Restaurant operator Boss Investments claims the Margaritaville company is breaking a licensing agreement by allowing a different developer to use the name in the Bahamas for a resort.
October 30, 2018 at 03:48 PM
4 minute read
Margaritaville — both a name and a laidback feel at tourist venues from New York to Costa Rica derived from Jimmy Buffett's 1977 hit song — is accused of breaching an agreement for the exclusive use of the trademark in the Bahamas.
Boss Investments Ltd. claims it has the exclusive rights to develop and run venues under the Margaritaville trademark, which includes the name, Buffett images and song lyrics, and associated merchandise under a 2014 agreement.
Boss opened a restaurant, store and bar with live entertainment on Paradise Island, but its plans and partnership with Margaritaville went awry when it wanted to open a second, similar venue.
Boss said Palm Beach-based Margaritaville Holdings LLC; its intellectual property licensor, Margaritaville Enterprises LLC; and the IP sublicensor that signed the Bahamas trademark agreement with Boss, Margaritaville of Bahamas LLC, didn't hold up their end of the deal.
Instead, they awarded a Margaritaville trademark for the development of another tourist destination on Paradise Island — a $250 million, 150-room resort on 6 acres with a spa, luxury condominiums, an 800-space garage, marina, restaurant and water park, according to Boss' lawsuit filed Friday in Palm Beach Circuit Court.
Boss sued all three Margaritaville LLCs as well as Margaritaville Development president James Wiseman.
Margaritaville declined comment through a spokeswoman.
Boss said the new Bahamian resort will rise two miles from its existing venue and Margaritaville has discouraged Boss from moving ahead with a second venue at a promising location.
Boss, which opened its first restaurant in the Bahamas in 2015, has the right to open a second Bahamas venue within five years after the first location was open for a year, according to the complaint.
After Boss met with a Margaritaville representative in spring 2017 to show a prospective second location at the Port of Nassau, a busy cruise ship port, Wiseman called Boss to suggest a ” 'slow play' moving forward with the proposed location … because Margaritaville had 'something better in that area for Boss,' ” the lawsuit alleges.
This turned out to be a stalling tactic so Margaritaville could license its trademark to the resort developer, Boss's attorneys, Todd Levine and Adam Steinberg, argue in the complaint.
Levine is a founding member and partner at Kluger, Kaplan, Silverman, Katzen & Levine in Miami, and Steinberg is a partner with The Law Offices of Adam J. Steinberg in Fort Lauderdale.
Wiseman and Boss representatives had a good working relationship, and Boss believed Wiseman was going to help with a second location, according to the complaint.
“ Instead, Wiseman had more devious and deceptive plans, and took advantage of his relationship with Boss's representatives to convince Boss to forego an opportunity to open a second venue in a prime location that is no longer available,” attorneys wrote in the complaint.
Boss and its attorneys based their knowledge of the competition in part on a Jan. 22 news release announcing Margaritaville at The Pointe.
“Even if the 'signature Margaritaville food and beverage concepts' at Margaritaville at the Pointe are not actually named 'Margaritaville' and ultimately bear other names that are evocative of Jimmy Buffett and/or other Buffett music, the infringement of Boss's sub-license of the intellectual property still exists, as does the confusion to customers,” Boss's attorneys argue.
Customers already are “confused” by the Margaritaville IP duplication between Boss's Paradise Island venue and the upcoming Margaritaville at The Pointe with at least 15 callers inquiring about the new Margaritaville hotel.
Boss claims it's entitled to revenue paid to Margaritaville, such as royalties and license fees, by the Margaritaville at The Pointe project.
The company seeks declaratory judgment and injunctive relief alleging fraud and negligent representation against the Margaritaville LLCs. The lawsuit also claims breach of the sublicense agreement and breach of implied covenant of good faith and dealing. Wiseman is named in counts alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
3 minute readHow Much Coverage Do You Really Have? Valuation and Loss Settlement Provisions in Commercial Property Policies
10 minute readThe Importance of 'Speaking Up' Regarding Lease Renewal Deadlines for Commercial Tenants and Landlords
6 minute readMeet the Attorneys—and Little Known Law—Behind $20M Miami Dispute
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250