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)
MMcCue@LRRLaw.com
J onathan W. Fountain (NV Bar No. 10351)
J Fountain@LRRLaw.com
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)
vijay@cobaltlaw.com
Will comply with LR IA 10-2 within 45 days
Amanda R. Conley (Cal. Bar No. 281270)
amanda@cobaltlaw.com
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. J urisdiction 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 J uly 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 J oie 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 J anuary 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 J une 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 J anuary 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 <www.summit.co>, 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 <www.thesummit.co>, 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 <www.thesummit.co>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 <www.thesummit.co>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)
vijay@cobaltlaw.com
Amanda R. Conley (Cal. Bar No. 281270)
amanda@cobaltlaw.com
COBALT LLP
918 Parker Street Bldg. A21
Berkeley, CA 94710

Michael J . McCue (NV Bar No. 6055)
MMcCue@LRRLaw.com
J onathan W. Fountain (NV Bar No. 10351)
J Fountain@LRRLaw.com
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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint Summit Series vs. Paddy Cosgrave and Web Summit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

You might also like