Marriott Agrees to $2M Judgment With Another Robocall Defendant
Marriott International, through “good faith negotiations,” reached agreement on the terms of a consent judgment with Prestige DRVoIP.Com, one of the defendants in its trademark infringement complaint to thwart robocallers from impersonating Marriott telemarketers, said a joint motion Tuesday (docket 1:21-cv-00610) for entry of that consent judgment in U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia. Once the court grants the motion, all of Marriott’s pending claims against Prestige will be dismissed with prejudice, it said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Prestige was served with Marriott’s May 17 first amended complaint May 23, but it failed to file an answer “or other responsive pleading,” said the proposed consent order. “Prestige has remained in default since that time,” and now consents to judgment for $2 million, it said. Prestige is at least the fourth defendant arising out of Marriott's May 2021 lawsuit with which Marriott has reached settlement agreements.
The consent judgment bars Prestige and its principals, Mirelis Burgos and Josias Vasquez, from using or facilitating the use of Marriott's name and trademarks, and asserts that they will not “obtain the benefit of others' use" of Marriott's name and trademarks, said the proposed document. The agreement obligates Burgos and Vasquez within five days of learning of others' “improper use” of Marriott's name and trademarks to report the details of any such wrongdoing to Marriott’s attorneys, it said.
Vasquez agrees under the proposed consent order to “testify truthfully without subpoena if requested by Marriott” about any robocalling or trademark wrongdoing, said the document, placing no such obligation on Burgos. Vasquez and Burgos have turned over to Marriott “all responsive documents of which they are currently aware and will provide further documentation to the extent it is subsequently discovered,” said the proposed agreement.
Burgos and Vasquez agree to the jurisdiction of the Eastern District of Virginia for enforcing the consent order under threat of contempt, said the proposed judgment. Any lack of compliance would entitle Marriott to collect “liquidated damages” of $25,000 for the first breach, $50,000 for the second and $150,000 for each subsequent breach, payable within 14 days after an order from the court.
In a court action related to another Marriott defendant, ResortCom, U.S. Magistrate Judge John Anderson, in an order Tuesday, gave Marriott until noon EST Thursday to respond to ResortCom’s Nov. 3 motion for leave to file a late answer to Marriott’s amended complaint. ResortCom’s lawyers blamed miscommunications among themselves for the failure to file a timely response by the Oct. 5 deadline. Marriott’s response to ResortCom’s motion for leave to file late is important because Thursday is when Marriott is scheduled to depose ResortCom Chief Financial Officer Dennis Hershey.