You are on page 1of 87

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 1 of 87

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,


Plaintiff,
v.
DESPEGAR.COM USA, INC., et al.
Defendants.

DESPEGAR.COM USA, INC.,


Counter-Plaintiff
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.
Counter-Defendant.

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT


Plaintiff, American Airlines, Inc. (Plaintiff, American Airlines, or American),
brings this second amended complaint against Despegar.com USA, Inc. (Despegar USA),
Travel Reservations SRL (Despegar Uruguay), Despegar.com.ar S.A. (Despegar Argentina),
Decolar.com Ltda. (Despegar Brazil), Despegar.com Chile S.A. (Despegar Chile),
Despegar.com Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Despegar Mexico), Despegar.com Per SAC (Despegar
Peru), Servicios Online 3351 de Venezuela, C.A. (Despegar Venezuela), Despegar Colombia
SAS (Despegar Colombia), Servicios Online S.A.S. Despegar.com (Despegar Ecuador), and

MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 2 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

Decolar.com, Inc. (the Despegar Parent Company; collectively, Defendants), to halt their
unfair competition, trademark infringement, false advertising, and other improper or deceptive
practices and for damages, and alleges as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
1.

This is an action arising primarily under Title 15 United States Code, Sections

1114 and 1125.


2.

The fundamental purpose of trademark law is to protect consumers from being

confused as to the source or affiliation of the products or services that they seek to buy. In order
to assist consumers in making informed decisions, trademark law encourages companies to
develop brand names to differentiate their products and services within the marketplace. This is
accomplished by legally limiting a brands use to the brands owner.
3.

Unfortunately, some individuals and entities attempt to take advantage of

consumers by marketing their products or services in a manner that improperly uses the brands
of others. In effect, they seek a free ride on the reputation and goodwill of anothers brand or the
conduct is such that it is improperly harming the brand of another. The Defendants have
knowingly committed these types of infringements.
THE PARTIES
4.

Plaintiff, American Airlines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place

of business at 4333 Amon Carter Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76155.


5.

Defendant Despegar.com USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation registered to

conduct business in the State of Florida. Its principal place of business is 14 N.E. 1st Avenue,
Suite 516, Miami, Florida 33132. Despegar USA is one of the conscious, dominant, and active
forces behind the wrongful acts of complained of herein, such wrongful acts being engaged in for

-2MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 3 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

the individual gain and benefit of all Defendants. Because Despegar USA caused and materially
contributed to the unlawful actions alleged herein and the harm caused to American Airlines, it is
therefore responsible and liable to American Airlines for such actions.
6.

Defendant Travel Reservations SRL is based in Uruguay with offices at Ruta 8

Km 17,500, Edificio Synergia, Oficina 101, Zonamerica, Montevideo 1600 UY. Despegar
Uruguay is one of the conscious, dominant, and active forces behind the wrongful acts of
complained of herein, such wrongful acts being engaged in for the individual gain and benefit of
all Defendants. Because Despegar Uruguay caused and materially contributed to the unlawful
actions alleged herein and the harm caused to American Airlines, it is therefore responsible and
liable to American Airlines for such actions.
7.

Defendant Despegar.com.ar S.A. is based in Argentina with offices at Boulevard

Corrientes 587, Floor 3, Buenos Aires, Federal Capital C1043ADS. Despegar Argentina is one of
the conscious, dominant, and active forces behind the wrongful acts of complained of herein,
such wrongful acts being engaged in for the individual gain and benefit of all Defendants.
Because Despegar Argentina caused and materially contributed to the unlawful actions alleged
herein and the harm caused to American Airlines, it is therefore responsible and liable to
American Airlines for such actions.
8.

Defendant Decolar.com, Ltda. is based in Brazil with offices at Rua Araujo, 216,

7, Andar, Republica, Sao Paulo, SP 0120-020. Despegar Brazil is one of the conscious,
dominant, and active forces behind the wrongful acts of complained of herein, such wrongful
acts being engaged in for the individual gain and benefit of all Defendants. Because Despegar
Brazil caused and materially contributed to the unlawful actions alleged herein and the harm

-3MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 4 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

caused to American Airlines, it is therefore responsible and liable to American Airlines for such
actions.
9.

Defendant Despegar.com Chile S.A. is based in Chile with offices at Luis Thayer

Ojeda 86, Piso 3, Providencia, Santiago. Despegar Chile is one of the conscious, dominant, and
active forces behind the wrongful acts of complained of herein, such wrongful acts being
engaged in for the individual gain and benefit of all Defendants. Because Despegar Chile caused
and materially contributed to the unlawful actions alleged herein and the harm caused to
American Airlines, it is therefore responsible and liable to American Airlines for such actions.
10.

Defendant Despegar.com Mexico, S.A. de C.V. is based in Mexico with offices at

Avenida Ejercito Nacional, No. 373, piso 3, Granada, Distrito Federal. Despegar Mexico is one
of the conscious, dominant, and active forces behind the wrongful acts of complained of herein,
such wrongful acts being engaged in for the individual gain and benefit of all Defendants.
Because Despegar Mexico caused and materially contributed to the unlawful actions alleged
herein and the harm caused to American Airlines, it is therefore responsible and liable to
American Airlines for such actions.
11.

Defendant Despegar.com Per SAC is based in Peru with offices at RUC

20544547756, Calle Martir Jose Olaya #129, Entre 1 y 2 Pardo Esq. BCO NACION,
Lima/Miraflores. Despegar Peru is one of the conscious, dominant, and active forces behind the
wrongful acts of complained of herein, such wrongful acts being engaged in for the individual
gain and benefit of all Defendants. Because Despegar Peru caused and materially contributed to
the unlawful actions alleged herein and the harm caused to American Airlines, it is therefore
responsible and liable to American Airlines for such actions.

-4MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 5 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

12.

Defendant Servicios Online 3351 de Venezuela, C.A. is based in Venezuela with

offices at Avenida Francisco de Miranda, Parque Cristal, Torre Oeste, Piso 6, Los Palos Grandes,
Caracas. Despegar Venezuela is one of the conscious, dominant, and active forces behind the
wrongful acts of complained of herein, such wrongful acts being engaged in for the individual
gain and benefit of all Defendants. Because Despegar Venezuela caused and materially
contributed to the unlawful actions alleged herein and the harm caused to American Airlines, it is
therefore responsible and liable to American Airlines for such actions.
13.

Defendant Despegar Colombia SAS is based in Colombia with offices at Carrera

106 15 A 25 Mx 15, Bogata, D.C., Colombia. Despegar Colombia is one of the conscious,
dominant, and active forces behind the wrongful acts complained of herein, such wrongful acts
being engaged in for the individual gain and benefit of all Defendants. Because Despegar
Colombia caused and materially contributed to the unlawful actions alleged herein and the harm
caused to American Airlines, it is therefore responsible and liable to American Airlines for such
actions.
14.

Defendant Servicios Online S.A.S. Despegar.com is based in Ecuador with offices

at Av Repblica de El Salvador N34-165, Interseccion Suiza, Edificio Dygoil, Quito 170135,


Pinchincha, Ecuador. Despegar Ecuador is one of the conscious, dominant, and active forces
behind the wrongful acts complained of herein, such wrongful acts being engaged in for the
individual gain and benefit of all Defendants. Because Despegar Ecuador caused and materially
contributed to the unlawful actions alleged herein and the harm caused to American Airlines, it is
therefore responsible and liable to American Airlines for such actions.
15.

Defendant Decolar.com, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and is the parent

corporation of all other Defendants. The Despegar Parent Company is one of the conscious,

-5MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 6 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

dominant, and active forces behind the wrongful acts complained of herein, such wrongful acts
being engaged in for the individual gain and benefit of all Defendants. Because the Despegar
Parent Company caused and materially contributed to the unlawful actions alleged herein and the
harm caused to American Airlines, it is therefore responsible and liable to American Airlines for
such actions.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs federal claims pursuant

to Title 15, United States Code, Section 1121 and Title 28, United States Code, Sections 1338(a)
and (b).
17.

This Court has jurisdiction over Defendants in that at least one or more of the

Defendants are located in this judicial district, transact business in this judicial district, and each
have committed tortious acts from within this district.
18.

Each Defendant, either individually or through one or more of its agents,

committed tortious acts within the State of Florida as described herein.


19.

Through the use of Defendants websites and through their own conduct,

Defendants have committed wrongful acts in Florida, including:


a. At least several Defendants share at least one common officerMario Fiori.
Decisions made by Mr. Fiori relating to the events harming American as
described herein were made both in his capacity as president of Despegar
USA, and as an officer of Despegar Argentina and the Despegar Parent
Company.
b. All Defendants actively use the websites despegar.com and decolar.com
(collectively, Website) for their fraudulent and improper ticketing scheme.
Defendants actively use electronic communications on the Website to offer
Florida consumers, among others, artificially inflated fares. The fares are
inflated due to charges and fees collected by several Defendants which are
buried in the amount displayed as Americans air fare for the destination. This
scheme harms Americans business in Florida by willfully and maliciously
diverting customers from American.
-6MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 7 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

c. All Defendants actively use electronic communications on the Website to


target, solicit, and offer Florida consumers, among others, artificially inflated
fares. The fares are inflated due to charges and fees collected by several
Defendants which are buried in the amount displayed as Americans air fare
for the destination. This scheme harms Florida consumers by causing such
consumers to (i) lose the opportunity to pay the correct and lower fare on
American compared with the fares of competing carriers, or (ii) pay distorted,
artificially higher charges and fees for American Airlines tickets than charged
by several Defendants for comparable tickets of other airlines.
d. All Defendants use the Website for their fraudulent and improper ticketing
scheme and several Defendants have actually obtained sales from Florida
consumers from the Website. These sales are neither isolated nor infrequent
and are believed to be in the millions of dollars annually.
e. All Defendants operate the Website, derive revenue from the Website, or
otherwise benefit from the Website, which is hosted by servers based in
Miami, Florida. Defendants have arranged for a subsidiary of Despegar
Uruguay to provide server maintenance, technical support, and training in
Miami, Florida.
f. Despegar USA, Despegar Uruguay, Despegar Argentina, Despegar Brazil,
Despegar Chile, Despegar Mexico, Despegar Peru, Despegar Venezuela,
Despegar Colombia, and Despegar Ecuador each booked air travel for Florida
consumers on American Airlines.
g. All Defendants actively engage in broad marketing as one company
Despegar.coma fictional entity that functions to encompass all
Defendants, including Foreign Defendants and that presents itself as based in
Miami, Florida.
h. Defendants have caused the services offered by the Despegar.com fictional
entity to be marketed in Florida to Florida consumers.
i. All Defendants operating through the Website enter into contractsas
Despegar.comwith various hotels in Florida. These contracts are entered
into for the benefit of and are ratified by all Defendants. Many of these
contracts include a forum selection clause specifying Florida (and often
Miami) as the forum for the resolution of any disputes.
j. Each foreign Defendant makes decisions outside of Florida relating to the
portrayal of American Airlines fares on the Website which cause injury to
Florida consumers who pay higher fares believing American is charging those
fares, when in fact the true fare is actually lower. These decisions harm
Americans brand and reputation.
-7MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 8 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

k. All Defendants make decisions outside of Florida relating to the portrayal of


American Airlines fares on the Website that cause additional injury to
American by intentionally making Americans fares to appear to be higher
when in fact the true fare is actually lower. These decisions divert customers
from American.
l. Defendants have conspired against American Airlines and have committed at
least one overt act in Florida in furtherance of that conspiracy, including the
use of the Website to display inflated American fares that are targeted to
Florida consumers, among others.
m. All Defendants are collectively responsible for the operation of the Website,
derive substantial revenues from Florida consumers who use the Website and
they also direct marketing efforts in Florida. There likely are contracts or
agreements between Defendants addressing these issues. As such, each
foreign Defendant is in fact conducting business in Florida.
n. Some fares booked on the Website for travel by Florida residents or to Florida
are improperly transferred by Defendants to another travel agency in order to
impact the payment of supplemental commissions (discussed below). Upon
information and belief, Defendants have an improper agreement with such
third-party travel agents to divide commissions.
o. The Despegar Parent Company directs or coordinates the acts of all other
Defendants with respect to air travel reservations and the acts complained of
herein.
20.

Defendants unlawful acts occurred in this State and in this district and in

commerce, were directed to cause and have caused injury to Plaintiff within this district and in
commerce.
21.

The Despegar Parent Company conducts or engages in a business venture in

Florida and has agents (including but not limited to Despegar USA) with offices in Florida.
22.

The Despegar Parent Company engages in substantial and not isolated activities

within Florida.
23.

Upon information and belief, the Despegar Parent Company was the mastermind

behind the scheme described herein to misuse Americans distinctive marks, to implement

-8MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 9 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

confusing and misleading advertising, to artificially inflate the displayed fare prices for
American Airlines flights, to charge higher booking fees for American Airlines flights than
would be charged for flights on other airlines, to divert customers from American to other
airlines, and to deceive consumers, causing harm to American Airlines and the value of its
distinctive marks and reputation. The Despegar Parent Company carried out this plan by
directing each other Defendant to discriminate against American Airlines by charging higher
booking fees for American Airlines flights, to increase the displayed fare price for American
Airlines flights, to divert customers to other airlines, and to display Americans marks and flight
information even if the other Defendants were not authorized to do so.
24.

The Despegar Parent Company exercises a high degree of control over the other

Defendants. The control exercised is so substantial that the individual Defendants act as one
entitythe non-existent entity referred to as Despegar.comfor the ultimate benefit of the
Despegar Parent Company. Upon information and belief, The Despegar Parent Company has
acknowledged that each other Defendant will act in furtherance of the overall brandthe nonexistent entity referred to as Despegar.comand manifests no separate interests of its own
apart from those of the Despegar Parent Company. Each other Defendant has acceded to the
Despegar Parent Companys control and has accepted the agency conferred on it by the Despegar
Parent Company.
25.

At all times relevant hereto, the Despegar Parent Company controlled and

directed the activities of each other Defendant as described herein. All companies thus present an
image to the public that they operate as a single enterprise. In fact, the Despegar Parent Company
sufficiently controls its subsidiaries and participates in their activities to such extent that it has,

-9MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 10 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

for example, accepted responsibility for activities of each of its subsidiary companies, including
all other Defendants here, in United States administrative enforcement proceedings.
26.

As the beneficial owner of all other Defendants, the Despegar Parent Company

thus derived substantial revenues and profits from the tortious acts committed by Defendants in
Florida.
27.

The Despegar Parent Company directs its officers or agents to travel to Florida for

the purposes of taking actions that have harmed American, including establishing and
maintaining the Websites that improperly make use of Americans distinctive marks, negotiating
or contracting with Florida-based companies to carry out the Despegar Parent Companys
scheme to injure American, opening bank accounts and completing banking transactions with
Florida-based banks whereby the Despegar Parent Company funnels ill-gotten gains to and from
the other Defendants, and conspiring to harm American. It also routinely sends a representative
to Miami to review and manage its financial affairs.
28.

The foregoing facts demonstrate that Defendants carry on a business in Florida,

committed and continue to commit tortious acts in Florida, and are causing injury to persons
within Florida thereby personally subjecting each one to personal jurisdiction in this Court.
29.

Venue is proper in this district under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1391,

because at least one Defendant, if not all of them, conduct business in the district and the claims
asserted against Defendants arose in this district.
PLAINTIFF AND ITS TRADEMARKS
30.

American Airlines enjoys a reputation in the United States and internationally as a

premier airline. American Airlines is one of the worlds largest airlines. Together with its

-10MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 11 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

affiliates, American Airlines serves 250 cities in over forty countries, with more than 4,000 daily
flights in over 1,000 aircraft.
31.

American Airlines has a rich history. For almost 80 yearslong prior to

Defendants acts described hereinAmerican Airlines developed global name-recognition and


goodwill, and has become a household name. In connection with its business, American Airlines
has used and continues to use the trade name American Airlines and the trademarks and service
marks AA and AMERICAN AIRLINES, and both alone and in connection with other words
and designs such as:

(stylized)

(stylized)

(hereinafter the American Airlines Marks).


32.

American Airlines draws its roots from scores of aviation companies founded in

the 1920s. The Aviation Corporation was formed in 1928 to acquire many of these young
aviation companies. In 1930, the Aviation Corporations airline subsidiaries were incorporated
into American Airways, Inc. In 1934, American Airways became American Airlines, Inc.
33.

On June 25, 1936, American Airlines was the first airline to fly the Douglas DC-3

in commercial service. On February 16, 1937, American Airlines carried its one-millionth
passenger. American Airlines began trading on the New York Stock Exchange on June 10, 1939.
By the end of the decade, American Airlines was the nations number one domestic air carrier in
terms of revenue passenger miles.
34.

To enhance and give public notice of its trademark rights, American Airlines has

obtained numerous federal trademark registrations for many of its American Airlines Marks, the
overwhelming majority of which have been in continuous use for more than five years and have
-11MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 12 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

become incontestable pursuant to Section 15 of the U.S. Trademark Act, also known as the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1115(b), including but not limited to:

AMERICAN AIRLINES, U.S. Registration No. 514,294. Registered on August

23, 1949 for air transport of passengers and freight, based on first use in commerce in
1934.

AA, U.S. Registration No. 514,292. Registered on August 23, 1949, for air

transport of passengers and freight, based on first use in commerce in 1935.

AA and Design, U.S. Registration No. 893,040. Registered on June 16, 1970, for

transportation of passengers by air, based on first use in commerce in 1969.

AA.COM, U.S. Registration No. 2,339,639. Registered on April 11, 2000, for

transportation of passengers and cargo by air, based on first use in commerce in 1998.
35.

In addition to its registration rights, American Airlines has strong common-law

rights in the American Airlines Marks by virtue of the extensive prior use and promotion of the
marks in commerce and American Airlines status as senior user of the marks.
36.

The American Airlines Marks serve as unique and famous source identifiers for

American Airlines and its various air transportation and other services.
37.

American Airlines has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in worldwide

advertising and marketing in order to build the fame, reputation, and goodwill of the American
Airlines Marks. American Airlines advertises through a variety of media, including television,
radio, newspapers, magazines, direct mail, and in telephone directories across the country.
38.

American Airlines also promotes its products and services on the Internet, via its

own websites and through advertising on the websites of third parties.

-12MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 13 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

39.

Through American Airlines longstanding use of the marks and promotional

activities related to the marks, and due to their widespread and favorable public acceptance and
recognition, the American Airlines Marks have become distinctive designations of the source of
origin of American Airlines goods and services. The American Airlines Marks have become
uniquely associated with American Airlines and its high quality goods and services. These marks
are assets of incalculable value as symbols of American Airlines, its quality goods and services,
and its goodwill.
40.

By virtue of their extensive use and promotion over the years, the American

Airlines Marks have developed valuable distinctiveness and secondary meaning in the
marketplace. The American Airlines Marks have achieved a significant and lasting presence in
the marketplace, causing the marks to achieve high recognition and value among consumers.
41.

The American Airlines Marks are famous within the meaning of the dilution

provisions of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(c); moreover, the American Airlines Marks
became famous prior to Defendants unlawful acts complained of herein. As a result of
American Airlines extensive advertising and promotional efforts and its continuous use of the
American Airlines Marks, the marks are famous and distinctive and are widely recognized by the
general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the involved goods
and services.
DEFENDANTS WEBSITE IS THE HUB OF THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME
42.

Defendants operate together as an online travel agency (OTA). Defendants

describe themselves as the largest Online Travel Agency in Latin America with a base in
Miami and with a presence in 21 countries throughout the Latin American region and the U.S.

-13MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 14 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

43.

Defendants collectively operate their OTAs through their Website, which is

accessible at www.despegar.com (which means to take off in Spanish) and www.decolar.com


(which means to take off in Portuguese).
44.

Defendants fraudulent scheme begins with the Website. The Website is created

and operated by Defendants to provide travelers with options for air travel, hotel
accommodations, rental cars, and other services. Each Defendant uses the Website to target
Florida consumers, among others, derive revenues from Florida consumers, among others, and
also divert customers from American.
45.

While Defendants hold out their Website to the public (and to some travel-service

providers such as hotels) as though they operate a singular OTA, that is not how their businesses
are organized. Each Defendant (except the Despegar Parent Company) operates a separate OTA
that shares the same Website with all other Defendants and which has virtually identical content
as the OTAs operated by each other Defendant. Often Defendants contract with hotels and other
travel service providers under the name of a non-existent entityDespegar.com. When it comes
to air travel, however, each Defendant acts as a separate OTA and each must be authorized as an
agent of the airline in order to ticket air travel for consumers.
46.

At all times relevant hereto, the Website was comprised of various country-

specific webpages, all of which were accessible to users in Florida and across the globe from the
main page available at www.despegar.com. Upon information and belief, the responsibility for
the day-to-day operation and revenue generation of the country specific webpages is delegated to
various Defendants as follow:
a. The day-to-day operation of the country-specific webpages for the United
States is delegated primarily to Despegar USA.

-14MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 15 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

b. The day-to-day operation of the country-specific webpages for Uruguay is


delegated primarily to Despegar Uruguay.
c. The day-to-day operation of the country-specific webpages for Argentina is
delegated primarily to Despegar Argentina.
d. The day-to-day operation of the country-specific webpages for Brazil is
delegated primarily to Despegar Brazil.
e. The day-to-day operation of the country-specific webpages for Chile is
delegated primarily to Despegar Chile.
f. The day-to-day operation of the country-specific webpages for Mexico is
delegated primarily to Despegar Mexico.
g. The day-to-day operation of the country-specific webpages for Peru is
delegated primarily to Despegar Peru.
h. The day-to-day operation of the country-specific webpages for Venezuela is
delegated primarily to Despegar Venezuela.
i. The day-to-day operation of the country-specific webpages for Colombia is
delegated primarily to Despegar Colombia.
j. The day-to-day operation of the country-specific webpages for Ecuador is
delegated primarily to Despegar Ecuador.
k. The day-to-day operation of all other country-specific webpages is shared
among Defendants.
47.

Upon information and belief, Defendants act in concert to provide uniform

content on each of the country-specific webpages, with the exception that prices will be shown in
the currency of the specific country on which the webpages focus.
48.

Upon information and belief, the Despegar Parent Company coordinates the

activities, including the activities complained of herein, of each of the other Defendants.
Booking and Ticketing Air Travel
49.

Consumers can use Defendants Website to obtain information regarding routes,

schedules, fares, prices, and availability for air travel and to book travel on airlines that have
authorized Defendants to book flights.

-15MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 16 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

50.

Information regarding schedules, fares, and availability on American Airlines was

provided to Despegar Argentina, Despegar Uruguay, Despegar Brazil, Despegar Chile, Despegar
Mexico, Despegar Peru, Despegar Venezuela, Despegar Colombia, and Despegar Ecuador
(collectively, the Authorized Despegar OTAs) through a global distribution system (GDS)
such as Sabre or Amadeus, which compiles flight information from multiple airlines and delivers
it to travel agencies (including some OTAs).
51.

For each booking, processed through a GDS, airlines typically pay the GDS a fee.

In turn, authorized OTAs responsible for the booking are generally compensated by the GDS.
Some of the Authorized Despegar OTAs were paid an additional commission for booking
international travel on American Airlines.
52.

The Authorized Despegar OTAs were previously authorized to serve as booking

and ticketing agents for American Airlines. Despegar USA was never appointed or authorized as
an American Airlines ticketing agent and was not authorized to view, display, book, or ticket
American Airlines flights.
53.

American Airlines tickets are non-transferrable and are issued only in the name of

the actual traveler.


54.

The American Airlines fares some Defendants were authorized to display, book,

and ticket were available for purchase by the traveler from American Airlines, with the
authorized Defendants acting only as an intermediary to facilitate the transaction. Defendants
were not authorized to purchase and re-sell any American Airlines tickets and, in fact, have not
done so.
55.

When a traveler booked an American Airlines flight through one of the

Authorized Despegar OTAs, a seat on that flight would be reserved for the traveler and a ticket

-16MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 17 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

may then be purchased from American. Once a reservation was booked, the Authorized
Despegar OTAs could process the transaction between the traveler and American Airlines and
could then issue a ticket on American Airlines ticket stock.
56.

Despite the fact that Despegar USA was never authorized to display American

Airlines flights, it did and improperly used Americans marks in doing so. Upon information
and belief, Despegar USA also secured bookings on American Airlines flights by improperly
utilizing the booking authority of another Defendant. Despegar USA then used brick-and-mortar
or other online travel agencies in order to process the customers payments and ticket these
flights.
57.

As more fully described below, Defendants improperly discriminate against

American Airlines by misrepresenting the air fare prices allegedly charged by American on the
Website. Additionally, Defendants also charge higher ticketing fees for bookings on American
flights than for bookings on other airlines. These improper fare tactics are not disclosed to either
actual or potential consumers. Defendants also improperly shift bookings to and from nonaffiliated travel agencies in order to book and ticket flights Defendants could not or to cause
American Airlines to pay additional commission amounts to the non-affiliated travel agencies in
order to harm Americans business.
58.

Defendants scheme is blatant and notorious. Defendants harm both the business

reputation of American and diminish the value of the American Airlines Marks.
Fare Discrimination
59.

With regard to fares, Defendants used the American Airlines Marks to display

fares for American Airlines flights. However, Defendants caused their Website to artificially
inflate the air fares actually charged by American Airlines for travel to or from Florida, and to

-17MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 18 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

and from other locations in the United States, by including in the purported American fare
amount a portion of a fee charged by Defendants. This additional fee is not separately disclosed
to the potential or actual consumer on the Website at any stagesearch, display, booking or
purchaseas being part of the fee actually and separately charged by Defendants and not
American Airlines.
60.

Potential American consumers thus are being improperly diverted from American

to other airlines mistakenly believing that American is charging a higher airfare for the travel
they seek. Actual consumers are deceived into paying an unnecessary and mischaracterized
amount for airfare for the travel they booked through the Website.
Ticketing Fees
61.

While using the American Airlines Marks to display fares for American Airlines

flights, Defendants also caused their Website to inflate and charge higher fees for bookings on
American Airlines flights. Defendants do not charge those same fees for tickets booked through
the Website with other carriers for similar travel.
62.

By varying the fees in this manner, Defendants improperly discriminate against

American while appearing to be neutral in their offering of airfare information. In fact,


Defendants even tout a low fare guarantee on their Website. Potential American consumers
thus are being improperly diverted from American to other airlines.
Shifting Bookings
63.

Various travel agencies have agreements with American whereby supplemental

commissions are paid based on the volume of ticketed fares. In other words, as these agencies
volume of tickets increases, so will the commission to be paid by American.

-18MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 19 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

64.

Upon information and belief, Defendants have agreements with GDSs whereby

additional volume booking incentives are paid to Defendants based on the volume of bookings
completed through a particular GDS. These agreements are believed to provide greater
incentives to Defendants for booking flights on airlines that exclusively use the same GDS that
provides the incentive to Defendants. Because American Airlines has relationships with multiple
GDSs, by booking flights on American, such bookings would not count toward the GDS volume
incentives. Defendants thus have attempted to divert some consumers to airlines other than
American in order to maximize the incentive payments they receive from a GDS.
65.

Again using the American Airlines Marks, Defendants lured consumers to the

Website where flights were booked. However, because some of the Defendants do not have a
booking or ticketing authority (or a supplemental commission agreement) with American, they
shifted bookings to travel agencies who have such authority and agreement. It did so in order to
complete unauthorized transactions and increase the commissions paid by American to these
agencies. Upon information and belief, Defendants improperly entered into arrangements with
such agencies to obtain a share of the supplemental commissions paid by American.
THE HARM TO AMERICAN AND ITS MARKS
66.

Defendants advertise on the internet using the American Airlines Marks in order

to draw consumers to their Website.


67.

By using American Airlines name and marks on the Website and in the manner

described above, Defendants make it appear that American Airlines endorses the improper
business practices of charging higher fees and/or fares for travel on American than for air travel
on other airlines thus misleading consumers to believe that fares for travel on American are
higher than those actually published by American or by any other carrier.

-19MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 20 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

68.

American Airlines has not endorsed or sponsored Defendants activities in the

manner in which they are being conducted. Nor did American Airlines authorize Defendants to
use American Airlines name, reputation, or marks in such a manner.
69.

Consumers who encounter Defendants unauthorized use of the American

Airlines Marks in the manner described herein are likely to believe that Defendants, and the
improper fare and fee charges on the Website, are approved by, associated with, or affiliated with
Plaintiff when, in fact, this is not the case.
70.

Defendants thus are improperly trading on American Airlines name and its

reputation. The active use of the Website, the electronic and inaccurate transmission of American
Airlines fare and fee information, the use of American Airlines name and trademark along with
the foregoing misrepresentations is conduct that each Defendant has directly, or indirectly,
caused, participated in, consented to, approved or authorized in order to promote their scheme
for financial gain.
71.

The effect of Defendants conduct is to harm Plaintiff and its business reputation

because such conduct is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive the public and
the trade to believe that Defendants and their fraudulent services originate with or are related to
American Airlines, or are licensed by, sponsored or approved by, connected with, or associated
or affiliated with Plaintiff, when this is not the case.
72.

Defendants conduct thus harms the business reputation of Plaintiff and

diminishes the value of the distinctive quality of the American Airlines Marks, which are
famous. Defendants harm to American Airlines Marks began after such marks became famous.
73.

Additionally, Despegar USA is displaying the American Airlines Marks and flight

information in order to confuse or deceive the public into believing that Despegar USA is a bona

-20MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 21 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

fide booking and ticketing agent of American Airlines when, in fact, it is not. Having drawn
these potential consumers to its Website by use of the American Airlines Marks and then again
by displaying the American Airlines Marks on its Website, potential consumers are then shown
artificially inflated prices for American Airlines fares in order to persuade the consumers to
select another airline for their travel. This is a classic bait-and-switch based on Despegar USAs
misappropriation and infringing use of the American Airlines Marks.
74.

As a result of the aforesaid acts by Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer substantial damage and irreparable injury. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy
by law, and unless Defendants are restrained and enjoined by the Court, said acts will be
continued and will continue to cause damage and irreparable injury to Plaintiff and to damage
Plaintiffs goodwill and business reputation. Plaintiff cannot ascertain the precise amount of its
damages at this time.
75.

Plaintiff has been required to retain undersigned counsel in this matter and agreed

to pay counsel a reasonable fee for their services.


76.

All conditions precedent to the commencement of this action have occurred or

been waived.
COUNT I
VIOLATION OF LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)
(False Advertising Despegar USA)
77.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through

76 above, as if set forth herein.


78.

Section 1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act provides in part:


(a) (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or
services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word,
term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any

-21MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 22 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact,


or false or misleading representation of fact, which
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the
nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her
or another persons goods, services, or commercial activities, shall
be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she
is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
79.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

USA but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the booking
authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar USA displayed
flight information for American Airlines flights that improperly discriminated against American
Airlines by misrepresenting the air fare prices allegedly charged by American on the Website.
Additionally, Despegar USA also charged higher ticketing fees for bookings on American flights
than for bookings on other airlines. These improper fare tactics were not disclosed to either
actual or potential consumers. Despegar USA also improperly shifted bookings to and from nonaffiliated travel agencies in order to book and ticket flights Despegar USA could not or to cause
American Airlines to pay additional commission amounts to the non-affiliated travel agencies in
order to harm Americans business.
80.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

USA but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the booking
authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar USA caused the
Website to artificially inflate the air fares actually charged by American Airlines for travel to or
from Florida, and to or from other locations in the United States, by including in the purported
American fare amount a portion of a fee charged by Despegar USA. This additional fee was not
separately disclosed to the potential or actual consumer on the Website at any stagesearch,

-22MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 23 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

display, booking, or purchaseas being part of the fee actually charged by Despegar USA and
not by American. In this manner, Despegar USA misrepresented the air fare prices allegedly
charged by American on the Website for many, if not all, of Americans flights. These
misrepresentations were made to actual or potential consumers who searched for flights on
routes for which American Airlines offered service. Upon information and belief, Despegar USA
displayed these misrepresented air fare prices to thousands of actual or potential consumers.
81.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

USA but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the booking
authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar USA also charged
higher fees for many, if not all, bookings on American Airlines flights. Despegar USA did not
charge those same fees for tickets booked through the Website with other carriers for similar
travel. Upon information and belief, Despegar USA charged higher booking fees for American
Airlines flights to thousands of consumers.
82.

By varying the fees in this manner, Despegar USA improperly discriminated

against American while appearing to be neutral in their offering of air fare information. In fact,
Despegar USA even touted a low fare guarantee on the Website.
83.

Despegar USAs scheme was blatant and notorious. Despegar USA harmed both

the business reputation of American and diminished the value of the American Airlines Marks.
84.

Potential consumers thus were being improperly diverted from American to other

airlines mistakenly believing that American is charging a higher airfare for the travel they
sought. Actual consumers were deceived into paying an unnecessary and mischaracterized
amount for travel booked through the Website.

-23MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 24 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

85.

Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this lawsuit, Despegar USA

had agreements with GDSs whereby additional volume booking incentives are paid to Despegar
USA based on the volume of bookings completed through a particular GDS. These agreements
are believed to provide greater incentives to Despegar USA for booking flights on airlines that
exclusively use the same GDS that provides the incentive to Despegar USA. Because American
Airlines has relationships with multiple GDSs, by booking flights on American, such bookings
would not count toward the GDS volume incentives. Despegar USA thus has attempted to divert
some consumers to airlines other than American in order to maximize the incentive payments it
would receive from a GDS.
86.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

USA and not to Plaintiff), and by using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar USA did
not have a booking or ticketing authority (or a supplemental commission agreement) with
American and so it shifted all bookings for American Airlines flights to travel agencies who have
such authority and agreement. It did so in order to complete unauthorized transactions and
increase the commissions paid by American to these agencies (whose identities are known to
Despegar USA). The exact number of bookings shifted by Despegar USA is known to Despegar
USA, but not to Plaintiff. Upon information and belief, Despegar USA improperly entered into
arrangements with such agencies to obtain a share of the supplemental commissions paid by
American.
87.

Despegar USAs actions, individually or through its agents as described above,

constitute a false or misleading representation of fact in an advertisement/promotion on the


Website concerning American Airlines fares by wrongfully and falsely attributing to American

-24MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 25 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

Airlines certain fare prices and fees as being charged by American when in fact that is not the
case.
88.

Alternatively, even if the information on the Website were literally true or

ambiguous, it has the tendency to mislead or deceive consumers. The information regarding fare
prices and fees on the Website is deceptive in the manner displayed to consumers and misleading
in context.
89.

Despegar USAs representations regarding fare prices and fee information

relating to American as displayed on the Website has deceived and has a tendency to deceive
consumers by materially influencing each consumers air fare purchasing decision.
90.

Despegar USAs representations specifically solicit consumers in interstate

commerce.
91.

Upon information and belief, Despegar USA willfully and maliciously modified

or allowed the modification of the Website in the manner described above to misrepresent fares
and fees as retaliation for Americans decision not to offer Defendants a lucrative supplemental
commission agreement for ticketed fares.
92.

Despegar USAs actions have harmed and continue to harm American Airlines

and also its actual or potential consumers. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
93.

By virtue of their aforementioned acts, Despegar USA has violated Section 43(a)

of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).


COUNT II
VIOLATION OF LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1114(1)
(Unauthorized Use of Americans Registered Marks Despegar USA)
94.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through

76 above, as if set forth herein.

-25MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 26 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

95.

Plaintiff is the registrant of the American Airlines Marks.

96.

Plaintiffs American Airlines Marks are famous and highly recognized by the

general consuming public, and were famous and highly recognized by the general consuming
public before Defendants actions complained of herein.
97.

Plaintiff did not consent to Despegar USA using, reproducing, counterfeiting,

copying, or colorably imitating its registered American Airlines Marks in any way. Nor did
Plaintiff consent to Despegar USA applying these Marks to the Website, advertisements, labels,
signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or any other materials intended to be used in
commerce.
98.

On dates known only to Despegar USA, and without authorization or consent

from American Airlines, Despegar USA used a reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable
imitation of Plaintiffs registered American Airlines Marks in connection with the sale, offering
for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services.
99.

The American Airlines Marks were displayed on Despegar USAs Website in

connection with information about American Airlines flights. Potential consumers were drawn
to Despegar USAs Website because of the use of Americans Marks and the display of
American Airlines flight information. These consumers could then select and book American
Airlines flights on Despegar USAs Website even though Despegar USA was not authorized
and could not process such reservations.
100.

Upon information and belief, when consumers used Despegar USAs Website to

access and book an American Airlines flight, Despegar USA would use the booking authority of
another Defendant in order to reserve the seat. The reservation was then transferred by Despegar
USA to another travel agency (the identities of which are known to Despegar USA but not to

-26MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 27 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

American Airlines) to complete the transaction between the consumer and American Airlines
and to issue the ticket. Upon information and belief, Despegar USA profited from these
transactions based on agreements with authorized travel agencies. Despegar USA also charged
the consumers a service or booking fee for these transactions.
101.

Despegar USAs use of Plaintiffs registered American Airlines Marks is likely to

cause or has caused confusion or mistake or was used to deceive potential consumers into
believing that Despegar USA was an authorized agent of American Airlines.
102.

Despegar USAs use of Plaintiffs registered American Airlines Marks is likely to

cause or has caused confusion or mistake or was used to deceive potential consumers into
believing that the fare prices shown on Despegar USAs Website were the fare prices charged by
American Airlines, when in fact they were not.
103.

Despegar USA knew that it did not receive Plaintiffs consent to use the

registered American Airlines Marks and that it was not authorized to book or ticket American
Airlines flights.
104.

Despegar USA knew that the prices displayed on the Website for American

Airlines fares were inaccurate.


105.

Upon information and belief, Defendants willfully and maliciously modified or

allowed the modification of the Website in the manner describe above to harm American
Airlines.
106.

Despegar USA thus used Plaintiffs registered American Airlines Marks with

knowledge that such use was intended to cause confusion, mistake, or deception.
107.

Despegar USA derived substantial revenues and profits through the unauthorized

use of the American Airlines Marks.

-27MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 28 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

108.

American Airlines has suffered harm, including but not limited to loss of profits

and damages, as a direct result of the Despegar USAs infringing use of Plaintiffs registered
American Airlines Marks.
109.

By virtue of their aforementioned acts, Despegar USA has violated Title 15,

United States Code, Section 1114(1).


COUNT III
VIOLATION OF LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)
(False Advertising Despegar Uruguay)
110.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through

76 above, as if set forth herein.


111.

Section 1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act provides in part:


(a) (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or
services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word,
term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any
false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact,
or false or misleading representation of fact, which
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the
nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her
or another persons goods, services, or commercial activities, shall
be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she
is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

112.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

Uruguay but not to Plaintiff), and by using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Uruguay
displayed flight information for American Airlines flights that improperly discriminated against
American Airlines by misrepresenting the air fare prices allegedly charged by American on the
Website. Additionally, Despegar Uruguay also charged higher ticketing fees for bookings on

-28MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 29 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

American flights than for bookings on other airlines. These improper fare tactics were not
disclosed to either actual or potential consumers. Despegar Uruguay also improperly shifted
bookings to and from non-affiliated travel agencies in order to book and ticket flights Despegar
Uruguay could not or to cause American Airlines to pay additional commission amounts to the
non-affiliated travel agencies in order to harm Americans business.
113.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

Uruguay but not to Plaintiff), and by using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Uruguay
caused the Website to artificially inflate the air fares actually charged by American Airlines for
travel to or from Florida, and to or from other locations in the United States, by including in the
purported American fare amount a portion of a fee charged by Despegar Uruguay. This
additional fee was not separately disclosed to the potential or actual consumer on the Website at
any stagesearch, display, booking, or purchaseas being part of the fee actually charged by
Despegar USA and not by American. In this manner, Despegar Uruguay misrepresented the air
fare prices allegedly charged by American on the Website for many, if not all, of Americans
flights. These misrepresentations were made to actual or potential consumers who searched for
flights on routes for which American Airlines offered service. Upon information and belief,
Despegar Uruguay displayed these misrepresented air fare prices to thousands of actual or
potential consumers.
114.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

Uruguay but not to Plaintiff), and by using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Uruguay
also charged higher fees for many, if not all, bookings on American Airlines flights. Despegar

-29MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 30 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

Uruguay did not charge those same fees for tickets booked through the Website with other
carriers for similar travel. Upon information and belief, Despegar Uruguay charged higher
booking fees for American Airlines flights to thousands of consumers.
115.

By varying the fees in this manner, Despegar Uruguay improperly discriminated

against American while appearing to be neutral in their offering of air fare information. In fact,
Despegar Uruguay even touted a low fare guarantee on the Website.
116.

Despegar Uruguays scheme was blatant and notorious. Despegar Uruguay

harmed both the business reputation of American and diminished the value of the American
Airlines Marks.
117.

Potential consumers thus were being improperly diverted from American to other

airlines mistakenly believing that American is charging a higher airfare for the travel they
sought. Actual consumers were deceived into paying an unnecessary and mischaracterized
amount for travel booked through the Website.
118.

Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this lawsuit, Despegar

Uruguay had agreements with GDSs whereby additional volume booking incentives are paid to
Despegar Uruguay based on the volume of bookings completed through a particular GDS. These
agreements are believed to provide greater incentives to Despegar Uruguay for booking flights
on airlines that exclusively use the same GDS that provides the incentive to Despegar Uruguay.
Because American Airlines has relationships with multiple GDSs, by booking flights on
American, such bookings would not count toward the GDS volume incentives. Despegar
Uruguay thus has attempted to divert some consumers to airlines other than American in order to
maximize the incentive payments it would receive from a GDS.

-30MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 31 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

119.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

Uruguay but not to Plaintiff), and by using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Uruguay
did not have a supplemental commission agreement with American (or because it sought a more
lucrative commission agreement) so it shifted many bookings for American Airlines flights to
travel agencies who have such authority and agreement. It did so in order to complete
unauthorized transactions and increase the commissions paid by American to these agencies
(whose identities are known to Despegar Uruguay). The exact number of bookings shifted by
Despegar Uruguay is known to Despegar Uruguay, but not to Plaintiff. Upon information and
belief, Despegar Uruguay improperly entered into arrangements with such agencies to obtain a
share of the supplemental commissions paid by American.
120.

Despegar Uruguays actions, individually or through its agents as described

above, constitute a false or misleading representation of fact in an advertisement/promotion on


the Website concerning American Airlines fares by wrongfully and falsely attributing to
American Airlines certain fare prices and fees as being charged by American when in fact that is
not the case.
121.

Alternatively, even if the information on the Website were literally true or

ambiguous, it has the tendency to mislead or deceive consumers. The information regarding fare
prices and fees on the Website is deceptive in the manner displayed to consumers and misleading
in context.
122.

Despegar Uruguays representations regarding fare prices and fee information

relating to American as displayed on the Website has deceived and has a tendency to deceive
consumers by materially influencing each consumers air fare purchasing decision.

-31MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 32 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

123.

Despegar Uruguays representations specifically solicit consumers in interstate

commerce.
124.

Upon information and belief, Despegar Uruguay willfully and maliciously

modified the Website in the manner described above to misrepresent fare prices and fees as
retaliation for Americans decision not to offer Defendants a lucrative supplemental commission
agreement for ticketed fares.
125.

Despegar Uruguays actions have harmed and continue to harm American

Airlines and also its actual or potential consumers. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
126.

By virtue of their aforementioned acts, Despegar Uruguay has violated Section

43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).


COUNT IV
VIOLATION OF LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)
(False Advertising Despegar Argentina)
127.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through

76 above, as if set forth herein.


128.

Section 1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act provides in part:


(a) (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or
services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word,
term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any
false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact,
or false or misleading representation of fact, which
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the
nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her
or another persons goods, services, or commercial activities, shall
be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she
is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

-32MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 33 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

129.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

Argentina but not to Plaintiff), and by using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Argentina
displayed flight information for American Airlines flights that improperly discriminated against
American Airlines by misrepresenting the air fare prices allegedly charged by American on the
Website. Additionally, Despegar Argentina also charged higher ticketing fees for bookings on
American flights than for bookings on other airlines. These improper fare tactics were not
disclosed to either actual or potential consumers. Despegar Argentina also improperly shifted
bookings to and from non-affiliated travel agencies in order to book and ticket flights Despegar
Argentina could not or to cause American Airlines to pay additional commission amounts to the
brick-and-mortar travel agencies in order to harm Americans business.
130.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

Argentina but not to Plaintiff), and by using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Argentina
caused the Website to artificially inflate the air fares actually charged by American Airlines for
travel to or from Florida, and to or from other locations, by including in the purported American
fare amount a portion of a fee charged by Despegar Argentina. This additional fee was not
separately disclosed to the potential or actual consumer on the Website at any stagesearch,
display, booking, or purchaseas being part of the fee actually charged by Despegar Argentina
and not by American. In this manner, Despegar Argentina misrepresented the air fare prices
allegedly charged by American on the Website for many, if not all, of Americans flights. These
misrepresentations were made to actual or potential consumers who searched for flights on
routes for which American Airlines offered service. Upon information and belief, Despegar

-33MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 34 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

Argentina displayed these misrepresented air fare prices to thousands of actual or potential
consumers.
131.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

Argentina but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Argentina
also charged higher fees for many, if not all, bookings on American Airlines flights. Despegar
Argentina did not charge those same fees for tickets booked through the Website with other
carriers for similar travel. Upon information and belief, Despegar Argentina charged higher
booking fees for American Airlines flights to thousands of consumers.
132.

By varying the fees in this manner, Despegar Argentina improperly discriminated

against American while appearing to be neutral in their offering of air fare information. In fact,
Despegar Argentina even touted a low fare guarantee on the Website.
133.

Despegar Argentinas scheme was blatant and notorious. Despegar Argentina

harmed both the business reputation of American and diminished the value of the American
Airlines Marks.
134.

Potential consumers thus were being improperly diverted from American to other

airlines mistakenly believing that American is charging a higher airfare for the travel they
sought. Actual consumers were deceived into paying an unnecessary and mischaracterized
amount for travel booked through the Website.
135.

Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this lawsuit, Despegar

Argentina had agreements with GDSs whereby additional volume booking incentives are paid to
Despegar Argentina based on the volume of bookings completed through a particular GDS.
These agreements are believed to provide greater incentives to Despegar Argentina for booking

-34MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 35 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

flights on airlines that exclusively use the same GDS that provides the incentive to Despegar
Argentina. Because American Airlines has relationships with multiple GDSs, by booking flights
on American, such bookings would not count toward the GDS volume incentives. Despegar
Argentina thus has attempted to divert some consumers to airlines other than American in order
to maximize the incentive payments it would receive from a GDS.
136.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

Argentina but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, because Despegar
Argentina did not have a supplemental commission agreement with American or because it
sought a more lucrative commission agreement, it was shifting many bookings for American
Airlines flights to travel agencies who have such authority and agreement. It did so in order to
complete unauthorized transactions and increase the commissions paid by American to these
agencies (whose identities are known to Despegar Argentina). The exact number of bookings
shifted by Despegar Argentina is known to Despegar Argentina, but not to Plaintiff. Upon
information and belief, Despegar Argentina improperly entered into arrangements with such
agencies to obtain a share of the supplemental commissions paid by American.
137.

Despegar Argentinas actions, individually or through its agents as described

above, constitute a false or misleading representation of fact in an advertisement/promotion on


the Website concerning American Airlines fares by wrongfully and falsely attributing to
American Airlines certain fare prices and fees as being charged by American when in fact that is
not the case.
138.

Alternatively, even if the information on the Website were literally true or

ambiguous, it has the tendency to mislead or deceive consumers. The information regarding fare

-35MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 36 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

prices and fees on the Website is deceptive in the manner displayed to consumers and misleading
in context.
139.

Despegar Argentinas representations regarding fare prices and fee information

relating to American as displayed on the Website has deceived and has a tendency to deceive
consumers by materially influencing each consumers air fare purchasing decision.
140.

Despegar Argentinas representations specifically solicit consumers in interstate

commerce.
141.

Upon information and belief, Despegar Argentina willfully and maliciously

modified the Website in the manner described above to misrepresent fare prices and fees as
retaliation for Americans decision not to offer Defendants a lucrative supplemental commission
agreement for ticketed fares.
142.

Despegar Argentinas actions have harmed and continue to harm American

Airlines and also its actual or potential consumers. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
143.

By virtue of their aforementioned acts, Despegar Argentina has violated Section

43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).


COUNT V
VIOLATION OF LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)
(False Advertising Despegar Brazil)
144.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through

76 above, as if set forth herein.


145.

Section 1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act provides in part:


(a) (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or
services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word,
term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any
false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact,
or false or misleading representation of fact, which

-36MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 37 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the


nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her
or another persons goods, services, or commercial activities, shall
be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she
is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
146.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

Brazil but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Brazil
displayed flight information for American Airlines flights that improperly discriminated against
American Airlines by misrepresenting the air fare prices allegedly charged by American on the
Website. Additionally, Despegar Brazil also charged higher ticketing fees for bookings on
American flights than for bookings on other airlines. These improper fare tactics were not
disclosed to either actual or potential consumers. Despegar Brazil also improperly shifted
bookings to and from non-affiliated travel agencies in order to book and ticket flights Despegar
Brazil could not or to cause American Airlines to pay additional commission amounts to the nonaffiliated travel agencies in order to harm Americans business.
147.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

Brazil but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Brazil
caused the Website to artificially inflate the air fares actually charged by American Airlines for
travel to or from Florida, and to or from other locations in the United States, by including in the
purported American fare amount a portion of a fee charged by Despegar Brazil. This additional
fee was not separately disclosed to the potential or actual consumer on the Website at any
stagesearch, display, booking, or purchaseas being part of the fee actually charged by
Despegar Brazil and not by American. In this manner, Despegar Brazil misrepresented the air

-37MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 38 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

fare prices allegedly charged by American on the Website for many, if not all, of Americans
flights. These misrepresentations were made to actual or potential consumers who searched for
flights on routes for which American Airlines offered service. Upon information and belief,
Despegar Brazil displayed these misrepresented air fare prices to thousands of actual or potential
consumers.
148.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

Brazil but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Brazil also
charged higher fees for many, if not all, bookings on American Airlines flights. Despegar Brazil
did not charge those same fees for tickets booked through the Website with other carriers for
similar travel. Upon information and belief, Despegar Brazil charged higher booking fees for
American Airlines flights to thousands of consumers.
149.

By varying the fees in this manner, Despegar Brazil improperly discriminated

against American while appearing to be neutral in their offering of air fare information. In fact,
Despegar Brazil even touted a low fare guarantee on the Website.
150.

Despegar Brazils scheme was blatant and notorious. Despegar Brazil harmed

both the business reputation of American and diminished the value of the American Airlines
Marks.
151.

Potential consumers thus were being improperly diverted from American to other

airlines mistakenly believing that American is charging a higher airfare for the travel they
sought. Actual consumers were deceived into paying an unnecessary and mischaracterized
amount for travel booked through the Website.

-38MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 39 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

152.

Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this lawsuit, Despegar Brazil

had agreements with GDSs whereby additional volume booking incentives are paid to Despegar
Brazil based on the volume of bookings completed through a particular GDS. These agreements
are believed to provide greater incentives to Despegar Brazil for booking flights on airlines that
exclusively use the same GDS that provides the incentive to Despegar Brazil. Because American
Airlines has relationships with multiple GDSs, by booking flights on American, such bookings
would not count toward the GDS volume incentives. Despegar Brazil thus has attempted to
divert some consumers to airlines other than American in order to maximize the incentive
payments it would receive from a GDS.
153.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

Brazil but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, because Despegar
Brazil did not have a supplemental commission agreement with American or because it sought a
more lucrative commission agreement, it was shifting many bookings for American Airlines
flights to travel agencies who have such authority and agreement. It did so in order to complete
unauthorized transactions and increase the commissions paid by American to these agencies
(whose identities are known to Despegar Brazil). The exact number of bookings shifted by
Despegar Brazil is known to Despegar Brazil, but not to Plaintiff. Upon information and belief,
Despegar Brazil improperly entered into arrangements with such agencies to obtain a share of the
supplemental commissions paid by American.
154.

Despegar Brazils actions, individually or through its agents as described above,

constitute a false or misleading representation of fact in an advertisement/promotion on the


Website concerning American Airlines fares by wrongfully and falsely attributing to American

-39MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 40 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

Airlines certain fare prices and fees as being charged by American when in fact that is not the
case.
155.

Alternatively, even if the information on the Website were literally true or

ambiguous, it has the tendency to mislead or deceive consumers. The information regarding fare
prices and fees on the Website is deceptive in the manner displayed to consumers and misleading
in context.
156.

Despegar Brazils representations regarding fare prices and fee information

relating to American as displayed on the Website has deceived and has a tendency to deceive
consumers by materially influencing each consumers air fare purchasing decision.
157.

Despegar Brazils representations specifically solicit consumers in interstate

commerce.
158.

Upon information and belief, Despegar Brazil willfully and maliciously modified

the Website in the manner described above to misrepresent fare prices and fees as retaliation for
Americans decision not to offer Defendants a lucrative supplemental commission agreement for
ticketed fares.
159.

Despegar Brazils actions have harmed and continue to harm American Airlines

and also its actual or potential consumers. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
160.

By virtue of their aforementioned acts, Despegar Brazil has violated Section 43(a)

of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).


COUNT VI
VIOLATION OF LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)
(False Advertising Despegar Chile)
161.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through

76 above, as if set forth herein.

-40MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 41 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

162.

Section 1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act provides in part:


(a) (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or
services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word,
term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any
false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact,
or false or misleading representation of fact, which
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the
nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her
or another persons goods, services, or commercial activities, shall
be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she
is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

163.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

Chile but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the booking
authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Chile displayed
flight information for American Airlines flights that improperly discriminated against American
Airlines by misrepresenting the air fare prices allegedly charged by American on the Website.
Additionally, Despegar Chile also charged higher ticketing fees for bookings on American
flights than for bookings on other airlines. These improper fare tactics were not disclosed to
either actual or potential consumers. Despegar Chile also improperly shifted bookings to and
from non-affiliated travel agencies in order to book and ticket flights Despegar Chile could not
or to cause American Airlines to pay additional commission amounts to the non-affiliated travel
agencies in order to harm Americans business.
164.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

Chile but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the booking
authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Chile caused the
Website to artificially inflate the air fares actually charged by American Airlines for travel to or

-41MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 42 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

from Florida, and to or from other locations in the United States, by including in the purported
American fare amount a portion of a fee charged by Despegar Chile. This additional fee was not
separately disclosed to the potential or actual consumer on the Website at any stagesearch,
display, booking, or purchaseas being part of the fee actually charged by Despegar Chile and
not by American. In this manner, Despegar Chile misrepresented the air fare prices allegedly
charged by American on the Website for many, if not all, of Americans flights. These
misrepresentations were made to actual or potential consumers who searched for flights on
routes for which American Airlines offered service. Upon information and belief, Despegar
Chile displayed these misrepresented air fare prices to thousands of actual or potential
consumers.
165.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

Chile but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the booking
authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Chile also charged
higher fees for many, if not all, bookings on American Airlines flights. Despegar Chile did not
charge those same fees for tickets booked through the Website with other carriers for similar
travel. Upon information and belief, Despegar Chile charged higher booking fees for American
Airlines flights to thousands of consumers.
166.

By varying the fees in this manner, Despegar Chile improperly discriminated

against American while appearing to be neutral in their offering of air fare information. In fact,
Despegar Chile even touted a low fare guarantee on the Website.
167.

Despegar Chiles scheme was blatant and notorious. Despegar Chile harmed both

the business reputation of American and diminished the value of the American Airlines Marks.

-42MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 43 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

168.

Potential consumers thus were being improperly diverted from American to other

airlines mistakenly believing that American is charging a higher airfare for the travel they
sought. Actual consumers were deceived into paying an unnecessary and mischaracterized
amount for travel booked through the Website.
169.

Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this lawsuit, Despegar Chile

had agreements with GDSs whereby additional volume booking incentives are paid to Despegar
Chile based on the volume of bookings completed through a particular GDS. These agreements
are believed to provide greater incentives to Despegar Chile for booking flights on airlines that
exclusively use the same GDS that provides the incentive to Despegar Chile. Because American
Airlines has relationships with multiple GDSs, by booking flights on American, such bookings
would not count toward the GDS volume incentives. Despegar Chile thus has attempted to divert
some consumers to airlines other than American in order to maximize the incentive payments it
would receive from a GDS.
170.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

Chile but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the booking
authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, because Despegar Chile did
not have a supplemental commission agreement with American or because it sought a more
lucrative commission agreement, it was shifting many bookings for American Airlines flights to
travel agencies who have such authority and agreement. It did so in order to complete
unauthorized transactions and increase the commissions paid by American to these agencies
(whose identities are known to Despegar Chile). The exact number of bookings shifted by
Despegar Chile is known to Despegar Chile, but not to Plaintiff. Upon information and belief,

-43MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 44 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

Despegar Chile improperly entered into arrangements with such agencies to obtain a share of the
supplemental commissions paid by American.
171.

Despegar Chiles actions, individually or through its agents as described above,

constitute a false or misleading representation of fact in an advertisement/promotion on the


Website concerning American Airlines fares by wrongfully and falsely attributing to American
Airlines certain fare prices and fees as being charged by American when in fact that is not the
case.
172.

Alternatively, even if the information on the Website were literally true or

ambiguous, it has the tendency to mislead or deceive consumers. The information regarding fare
prices and fees on the Website is deceptive in the manner displayed to consumers and misleading
in context.
173.

Despegar Chiles representations regarding fare prices and fee information

relating to American as displayed on the Website has deceived and has a tendency to deceive
consumers by materially influencing each consumers air fare purchasing decision.
174.

Despegar Chiles representations specifically solicit consumers in interstate

commerce.
175.

Upon information and belief, Despegar Chile willfully and maliciously modified

the Website in the manner described above to misrepresent fare prices and fees as retaliation for
Americans decision not to offer Defendants a lucrative supplemental commission agreement for
ticketed fares.
176.

Despegar Chiles actions have harmed and continue to harm American Airlines

and also its actual or potential consumers. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

-44MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 45 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

177.

By virtue of their aforementioned acts, Despegar Chile has violated Section 43(a)

of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).


COUNT VII
VIOLATION OF LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)
(False Advertising Despegar Mexico)
178.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through

76 above, as if set forth herein.


179.

Section 1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act provides in part:


(a) (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or
services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word,
term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any
false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact,
or false or misleading representation of fact, which
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the
nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her
or another persons goods, services, or commercial activities, shall
be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she
is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

180.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

Mexico but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Mexico
displayed flight information for American Airlines flights that improperly discriminated against
American Airlines by misrepresenting the air fare prices allegedly charged by American on the
Website. Additionally, Despegar Mexico also charged higher ticketing fees for bookings on
American flights than for bookings on other airlines. These improper fare tactics were not
disclosed to either actual or potential consumers. Despegar Mexico also improperly shifted
bookings to and from non-affiliated travel agencies in order to book and ticket flights Despegar

-45MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 46 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

Mexico could not or to cause American Airlines to pay additional commission amounts to the
non-affiliated travel agencies in order to harm Americans business.
181.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

Mexico but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Mexico
caused the Website to artificially inflate the air fares actually charged by American Airlines for
travel to or from Florida, and to or from other locations in the United States, by including in the
purported American fare amount a portion of a fee charged by Despegar Mexico. This additional
fee was not separately disclosed to the potential or actual consumer on the Website at any
stagesearch, display, booking, or purchaseas being part of the fee actually charged by
Despegar Mexico and not by American. In this manner, Despegar Mexico misrepresented the air
fare prices allegedly charged by American on the Website for many, if not all, of Americans
flights. These misrepresentations were made to actual or potential consumers who searched for
flights on routes for which American Airlines offered service. Upon information and belief,
Despegar Mexico displayed these misrepresented air fare prices to thousands of actual or
potential consumers.
182.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

Mexico but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Mexico
also charged higher fees for many, if not all, bookings on American Airlines flights. Despegar
Mexico did not charge those same fees for tickets booked through the Website with other carriers
for similar travel. Upon information and belief, Despegar Mexico charged higher booking fees
for American Airlines flights to thousands of consumers.

-46MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 47 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

183.

By varying the fees in this manner, Despegar Mexico improperly discriminated

against American while appearing to be neutral in their offering of air fare information. In fact,
Despegar Mexico even touted a low fare guarantee on the Website.
184.

Despegar Mexicos scheme was blatant and notorious. Despegar Mexico harmed

both the business reputation of American and diminished the value of the American Airlines
Marks.
185.

Potential consumers thus were being improperly diverted from American to other

airlines mistakenly believing that American is charging a higher airfare for the travel they
sought. Actual consumers were deceived into paying an unnecessary and mischaracterized
amount for travel booked through the Website.
186.

Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this lawsuit, Despegar

Mexico had agreements with GDSs whereby additional volume booking incentives are paid to
Despegar Mexico based on the volume of bookings completed through a particular GDS. These
agreements are believed to provide greater incentives to Despegar Mexico for booking flights on
airlines that exclusively use the same GDS that provides the incentive to Despegar Mexico.
Because American Airlines has relationships with multiple GDSs, by booking flights on
American, such bookings would not count toward the GDS volume incentives. Despegar Mexico
thus has attempted to divert some consumers to airlines other than American in order to
maximize the incentive payments it would receive from a GDS.
187.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

Mexico but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, because Despegar
Mexico did not have a supplemental commission agreement with American or because it sought

-47MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 48 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

a more lucrative commission agreement, it was shifting many bookings for American Airlines
flights to travel agencies who have such authority and agreement. It did so in order to complete
unauthorized transactions and increase the commissions paid by American to these agencies
(whose identities are known to Despegar Mexico). The exact number of bookings shifted by
Despegar Mexico is known to Despegar Mexico, but not to Plaintiff. Upon information and
belief, Despegar Mexico improperly entered into arrangements with such agencies to obtain a
share of the supplemental commissions paid by American.
188.

Despegar Mexicos actions, individually or through its agents as described above,

constitute a false or misleading representation of fact in an advertisement/promotion on the


Website concerning American Airlines fares by wrongfully and falsely attributing to American
Airlines certain fare prices and fees as being charged by American when in fact that is not the
case.
189.

Alternatively, even if the information on the Website were literally true or

ambiguous, it has the tendency to mislead or deceive consumers. The information regarding fare
prices and fees on the Website is deceptive in the manner displayed to consumers and misleading
in context.
190.

Despegar Mexicos representations regarding fare prices and fee information

relating to American as displayed on the Website has deceived and has a tendency to deceive
consumers by materially influencing each consumers air fare purchasing decision.
191.

Despegar Mexicos representations specifically solicit consumers in interstate

commerce.
192.

Upon information and belief, Despegar Mexico willfully and maliciously

modified the Website in the manner described above to misrepresent fare prices and fees as

-48MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 49 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

retaliation for Americans decision not to offer Defendants a lucrative supplemental commission
agreement for ticketed fares.
193.

Despegar Mexicos actions have harmed and continue to harm American Airlines

and also its actual or potential consumers. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
194.

By virtue of their aforementioned acts, Despegar Mexico has violated Section

43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).


COUNT VIII
VIOLATION OF LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)
(False Advertising Despegar Peru)
195.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through

76 above, as if set forth herein.


196.

Section 1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act provides in part:


(a) (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or
services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word,
term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any
false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact,
or false or misleading representation of fact, which
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the
nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her
or another persons goods, services, or commercial activities, shall
be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she
is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

197.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

Peru but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the booking
authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Peru displayed
flight information for American Airlines flights that improperly discriminated against American
Airlines by misrepresenting the air fare prices allegedly charged by American on the Website.

-49MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 50 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

Additionally, Despegar Peru also charged higher ticketing fees for bookings on American flights
than for bookings on other airlines. These improper fare tactics were not disclosed to either
actual or potential consumers. Despegar Peru also improperly shifted bookings to and from nonaffiliated travel agencies in order to book and ticket flights Despegar Peru could not or to cause
American Airlines to pay additional commission amounts to the non-affiliated travel agencies in
order to harm Americans business.
198.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

Peru but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the booking
authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Peru caused the
Website to artificially inflate the air fares actually charged by American Airlines for travel to or
from Florida, and to or from other locations in the United States, by including in the purported
American fare amount a portion of a fee charged by Despegar Peru. This additional fee was not
separately disclosed to the potential or actual consumer on the Website at any stagesearch,
display, booking, or purchaseas being part of the fee actually charged by Despegar Peru and
not by American. In this manner, Despegar Peru misrepresented the air fare prices allegedly
charged by American on the Website for many, if not all, of Americans flights. These
misrepresentations were made to actual or potential consumers who searched for flights on
routes for which American Airlines offered service. Upon information and belief, Despegar Peru
displayed these misrepresented air fare prices to thousands of actual or potential consumers.
199.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

Peru but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the booking
authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Peru also charged
higher fees for many, if not all, bookings on American Airlines flights. Despegar Peru did not

-50MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 51 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

charge those same fees for tickets booked through the Website with other carriers for similar
travel. Upon information and belief, Despegar Peru charged higher booking fees for American
Airlines flights to thousands of consumers.
200.

By varying the fees in this manner, Despegar Peru improperly discriminated

against American while appearing to be neutral in their offering of air fare information. In fact,
Despegar Peru even touted a low fare guarantee on the Website.
201.

Despegar Perus scheme was blatant and notorious. Despegar Peru harmed both

the business reputation of American and diminished the value of the American Airlines Marks.
202.

Potential consumers thus were being improperly diverted from American to other

airlines mistakenly believing that American is charging a higher airfare for the travel they
sought. Actual consumers were deceived into paying an unnecessary and mischaracterized
amount for travel booked through the Website.
203.

Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this lawsuit, Despegar Peru

had agreements with GDSs whereby additional volume booking incentives are paid to Despegar
Peru based on the volume of bookings completed through a particular GDS. These agreements
are believed to provide greater incentives to Despegar Peru for booking flights on airlines that
exclusively use the same GDS that provides the incentive to Despegar Peru. Because American
Airlines has relationships with multiple GDSs, by booking flights on American, such bookings
would not count toward the GDS volume incentives. Despegar Peru thus has attempted to divert
some consumers to airlines other than American in order to maximize the incentive payments it
would receive from a GDS.
204.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

Peru but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the booking

-51MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 52 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, because Despegar Peru did
not have a supplemental commission agreement with American or because it sought a more
lucrative commission agreement, it was shifting many bookings for American Airlines flights to
travel agencies who have such authority and agreement. It did so in order to complete
unauthorized transactions and increase the commissions paid by American to these agencies
(whose identities are known to Despegar Peru). The exact number of bookings shifted by
Despegar Peru is known to Despegar Peru, but not to Plaintiff. Upon information and belief,
Despegar Peru improperly entered into arrangements with such agencies to obtain a share of the
supplemental commissions paid by American.
205.

Despegar Perus actions, individually or through its agents as described above,

constitute a false or misleading representation of fact in an advertisement/promotion on the


Website concerning American Airlines fares by wrongfully and falsely attributing to American
Airlines certain fare prices and fees as being charged by American when in fact that is not the
case.
206.

Alternatively, even if the information on the Website were literally true or

ambiguous, it has the tendency to mislead or deceive consumers. The information regarding fare
prices and fees on the Website is deceptive in the manner displayed to consumers and misleading
in context.
207.

Despegar Perus representations regarding fare prices and fee information relating

to American as displayed on the Website has deceived and has a tendency to deceive consumers
by materially influencing each consumers air fare purchasing decision.
208.

Despegar Perus representations specifically solicit consumers in interstate

commerce.

-52MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 53 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

209.

Upon information and belief, Despegar Peru willfully and maliciously modified

the Website in the manner described above to misrepresent fare prices and fees as retaliation for
Americans decision not to offer Defendants a lucrative supplemental commission agreement for
ticketed fares.
210.

Despegar Perus actions have harmed and continue to harm American Airlines

and also its actual or potential consumers. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
211.

By virtue of their aforementioned acts, Despegar Peru has violated Section 43(a)

of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).


COUNT IX
VIOLATION OF LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)
(False Advertising Despegar Venezuela)
212.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through

76 above, as if set forth herein.


213.

Section 1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act provides in part:


(a) (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or
services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word,
term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any
false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact,
or false or misleading representation of fact, which
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the
nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her
or another persons goods, services, or commercial activities, shall
be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she
is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

214.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

Venezuela but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Venezuela

-53MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 54 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

displayed flight information for American Airlines flights that improperly discriminated against
American Airlines by misrepresenting the air fare prices allegedly charged by American on the
Website. Additionally, Despegar Venezuela also charged higher ticketing fees for bookings on
American flights than for bookings on other airlines. These improper fare tactics were not
disclosed to either actual or potential consumers. Despegar Venezuela also improperly shifted
bookings to and from non-affiliated travel agencies in order to book and ticket flights Despegar
Venezuela could not or to cause American Airlines to pay additional commission amounts to the
non-affiliated travel agencies in order to harm Americans business.
215.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

Venezuela but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Venezuela
caused the Website to artificially inflate the air fares actually charged by American Airlines for
travel to or from Florida, and to or from other locations in the United States, by including in the
purported American fare amount a portion of a fee charged by Despegar Venezuela. This
additional fee was not separately disclosed to the potential or actual consumer on the Website at
any stagesearch, display, booking, or purchaseas being part of the fee actually charged by
Despegar Venezuela and not by American. In this manner, Despegar Venezuela misrepresented
the air fare prices allegedly charged by American on the Website for many, if not all, of
Americans flights. These misrepresentations were made to actual or potential consumers who
searched for flights on routes for which American Airlines offered service. Upon information
and belief, Despegar Venezuela displayed these misrepresented air fare prices to thousands of
actual or potential consumers.

-54MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 55 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

216.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

Venezuela but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, Despegar Venezuela
also charged higher fees for many, if not all, bookings on American Airlines flights. Despegar
Venezuela did not charge those same fees for tickets booked through the Website with other
carriers for similar travel. Upon information and belief, Despegar Venezuela charged higher
booking fees for American Airlines flights to thousands of consumers.
217.

By varying the fees in this manner, Despegar Venezuela improperly discriminated

against American while appearing to be neutral in their offering of air fare information. In fact,
Despegar Venezuela even touted a low fare guarantee on the Website.
218.

Despegar Venezuelas scheme was blatant and notorious. Despegar Venezuela

harmed both the business reputation of American and diminished the value of the American
Airlines Marks.
219.

Potential consumers thus were being improperly diverted from American to other

airlines mistakenly believing that American is charging a higher airfare for the travel they
sought. Actual consumers were deceived into paying an unnecessary and mischaracterized
amount for travel booked through the Website.
220.

Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this lawsuit, Despegar

Venezuela had agreements with GDSs whereby additional volume booking incentives are paid to
Despegar Venezuela based on the volume of bookings completed through a particular GDS.
These agreements are believed to provide greater incentives to Despegar Venezuela for booking
flights on airlines that exclusively use the same GDS that provides the incentive to Despegar
Venezuela. Because American Airlines has relationships with multiple GDSs, by booking flights

-55MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 56 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

on American, such bookings would not count toward the GDS volume incentives. Despegar
Venezuela thus has attempted to divert some consumers to airlines other than American in order
to maximize the incentive payments it would receive from a GDS.
221.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to Despegar

Venezuela but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American discontinued the
booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, because Despegar
Venezuela did not have a supplemental commission agreement with American or because it
sought a more lucrative commission agreement, it was shifting many bookings for American
Airlines flights to travel agencies who have such authority and agreement. It did so in order to
complete unauthorized transactions and increase the commissions paid by American to these
agencies (whose identities who are known to Despegar Venezuela). The exact number of
bookings shifted by Despegar Venezuela is known to Despegar Venezuela, but not to Plaintiff.
Upon information and belief, Despegar Venezuela improperly entered into arrangements with
such agencies to obtain a share of the supplemental commissions paid by American.
222.

Despegar Venezuelas actions, individually or through its agents as described

above, constitute a false or misleading representation of fact in an advertisement/promotion on


the Website concerning American Airlines fares by wrongfully and falsely attributing to
American Airlines certain fare prices and fees as being charged by American when in fact that is
not the case.
223.

Alternatively, even if the information on the Website were literally true or

ambiguous, it has the tendency to mislead or deceive consumers. The information regarding fare
prices and fees on the Website is deceptive in the manner displayed to consumers and misleading
in context.

-56MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 57 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

224.

Despegar Venezuelas representations regarding fare prices and fee information

relating to American as displayed on the Website has deceived and has a tendency to deceive
consumers by materially influencing each consumers air fare purchasing decision.
225.

Despegar Venezuelas representations specifically solicit consumers in interstate

commerce.
226.

Upon information and belief, Despegar Venezuela willfully and maliciously

modified the Website in the manner described above to misrepresent fare prices and fees as
retaliation for Americans decision not to offer Defendants a lucrative supplemental commission
agreement for ticketed fares.
227.

Despegar Venezuelas actions have harmed and continue to harm American

Airlines and also its actual or potential consumers. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
228.

By virtue of their aforementioned acts, Despegar Venezuela has violated Section

43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).


COUNT X
VIOLATION OF LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)
(False Advertising Despegar Colombia)
229.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through

76 above, as if set forth herein.


230.

Section 1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act provides in part:


(a) (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or
services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word,
term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any
false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact,
or false or misleading representation of fact, which
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the
nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her

-57MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 58 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

or another persons goods, services, or commercial activities, shall


be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she
is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
231.

From in or around at least its incorporation (the exact dates of which are known to

Despegar Colombia but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American
discontinued the booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit,
Despegar Colombia displayed flight information for American Airlines flights that improperly
discriminated against American Airlines by misrepresenting the air fare prices allegedly charged
by American on the Website. Additionally, Despegar Colombia also charged higher ticketing
fees for bookings on American flights than for bookings on other airlines. These improper fare
tactics were not disclosed to either actual or potential consumers. Despegar Colombia also
improperly shifted bookings to and from non-affiliated travel agencies in order to book and ticket
flights Despegar Colombia could not or to cause American Airlines to pay additional
commission amounts to the non-affiliated travel agencies in order to harm Americans business.
232.

From in or around at least its incorporation (the exact dates of which are known to

Despegar Colombia but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American
discontinued the booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit,
Despegar Colombia caused the Website to artificially inflate the air fares actually charged by
American Airlines for travel to or from Florida, and to or from other locations in the United
States, by including in the purported American fare amount a portion of a fee charged by
Despegar Colombia. This additional fee was not separately disclosed to the potential or actual
consumer on the Website at any stagesearch, display, booking, or purchaseas being part of
the fee actually charged by Despegar Colombia and not by American. In this manner, Despegar
Colombia misrepresented the air fare prices allegedly charged by American on the Website for

-58MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 59 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

many, if not all, of Americans flights. These misrepresentations were made to actual or potential
consumers who searched for flights on routes for which American Airlines offered service. Upon
information and belief, Despegar Colombia displayed these misrepresented air fare prices to
thousands of actual or potential consumers.
233.

From in or around at least its incorporation (the exact dates of which are known to

Despegar Colombia but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American
discontinued the booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit,
Despegar Colombia also charged higher fees for many, if not all, bookings on American Airlines
flights. Despegar Colombia did not charge those same fees for tickets booked through the
Website with other carriers for similar travel. Upon information and belief, Despegar Colombia
charged higher booking fees for American Airlines flights to thousands of consumers.
234.

By varying the fees in this manner, Despegar Colombia improperly discriminated

against American while appearing to be neutral in their offering of air fare information. In fact,
Despegar Colombia even touted a low fare guarantee on the Website.
235.

Despegar Colombias scheme was blatant and notorious. Despegar Colombia

harmed both the business reputation of American and diminished the value of the American
Airlines Marks.
236.

Potential consumers thus were being improperly diverted from American to other

airlines mistakenly believing that American is charging a higher airfare for the travel they
sought. Actual consumers were deceived into paying an unnecessary and mischaracterized
amount for travel booked through the Website.
237.

Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this lawsuit, Despegar

Colombia had agreements with GDSs whereby additional volume booking incentives are paid to

-59MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 60 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

Despegar Colombia based on the volume of bookings completed through a particular GDS.
These agreements are believed to provide greater incentives to Despegar Colombia for booking
flights on airlines that exclusively use the same GDS that provides the incentive to Despegar
Colombia. Because American Airlines has relationships with multiple GDSs, by booking flights
on American, such bookings would not count toward the GDS volume incentives. Despegar
Colombia thus has attempted to divert some consumers to airlines other than American in order
to maximize the incentive payments it would receive from a GDS.
238.

From in or around at least its incorporation (the exact dates of which are known to

Despegar Colombia but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American
discontinued the booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit,
because Despegar Colombia did not have a supplemental commission agreement with American
or because it sought a more lucrative commission agreement, it was shifting many bookings for
American Airlines flights to travel agencies who have such authority and agreement. It did so in
order to complete unauthorized transactions and increase the commissions paid by American to
these agencies (whose identities are known to Despegar Colombia). The exact number of
bookings shifted by Despegar Colombia is known to Despegar Colombia, but not to Plaintiff.
Upon information and belief, Despegar Colombia improperly entered into arrangements with
such agencies to obtain a share of the supplemental commissions paid by American.
239.

Despegar Colombias actions, individually or through its agents as described

above, constitute a false or misleading representation of fact in an advertisement/promotion on


the Website concerning American Airlines fares by wrongfully and falsely attributing to
American Airlines certain fare prices and fees as being charged by American when in fact that is
not the case.

-60MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 61 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

240.

Alternatively, even if the information on the Website were literally true or

ambiguous, it has the tendency to mislead or deceive consumers. The information regarding fare
prices and fees on the Website is deceptive in the manner displayed to consumers and misleading
in context.
241.

Despegar Colombias representations regarding fare prices and fee information

relating to American as displayed on the Website has deceived and has a tendency to deceive
consumers by materially influencing each consumers air fare purchasing decision.
242.

Despegar Colombias representations specifically solicit consumers in interstate

commerce.
243.

Upon information and belief, Despegar Colombia willfully and maliciously

modified the Website in the manner described above to misrepresent fare prices and fees as
retaliation for Americans decision not to offer Defendants a lucrative supplemental commission
agreement for ticketed fares.
244.

Despegar Colombias actions have harmed and continue to harm American

Airlines and also its actual or potential consumers. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
245.

By virtue of their aforementioned acts, Despegar Colombia has violated Section

43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).


COUNT XI
VIOLATION OF LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)
(False Advertising Despegar Ecuador)
246.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through

76 above, as if set forth herein.


247.

Section 1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act provides in part:


(a) (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or
services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word,
-61-

MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 62 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any


false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact,
or false or misleading representation of fact, which
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the
nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her
or another persons goods, services, or commercial activities, shall
be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she
is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
248.

From in or around at least its incorporation (the exact dates of which are known to

Despegar Ecuador but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American
discontinued the booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit,
Despegar Ecuador displayed flight information for American Airlines flights that improperly
discriminated against American Airlines by misrepresenting the air fare prices allegedly charged
by American on the Website. Additionally, Despegar Ecuador also charged higher ticketing fees
for bookings on American flights than for bookings on other airlines. These improper fare tactics
were not disclosed to either actual or potential consumers. Despegar Ecuador also improperly
shifted bookings to and from non-affiliated travel agencies in order to book and ticket flights
Despegar Ecuador could not or to cause American Airlines to pay additional commission
amounts to the non-affiliated travel agencies in order to harm Americans business.
249.

From in or around at least its incorporation (the exact dates of which are known to

Despegar Ecuador but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American
discontinued the booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit,
Despegar Ecuador caused the Website to artificially inflate the air fares actually charged by
American Airlines for travel to or from Florida, and to or from other locations in the United
States, by including in the purported American fare amount a portion of a fee charged by

-62MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 63 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

Despegar Ecuador. This additional fee was not separately disclosed to the potential or actual
consumer on the Website at any stagesearch, display, booking, or purchaseas being part of
the fee actually charged by Despegar Ecuador and not by American. In this manner, Despegar
Ecuador misrepresented the air fare prices allegedly charged by American on the Website for
many, if not all, of Americans flights. These misrepresentations were made to actual or potential
consumers who searched for flights on routes for which American Airlines offered service. Upon
information and belief, Despegar Ecuador displayed these misrepresented air fare prices to
thousands of actual or potential consumers.
250.

From in or around at least its incorporation (the exact dates of which are known to

Despegar Ecuador but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American
discontinued the booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit,
Despegar Ecuador also charged higher fees for many, if not all, bookings on American Airlines
flights. Despegar Ecuador did not charge those same fees for tickets booked through the Website
with other carriers for similar travel. Upon information and belief, Despegar Ecuador charged
higher booking fees for American Airlines flights to thousands of consumers.
251.

By varying the fees in this manner, Despegar Ecuador improperly discriminated

against American while appearing to be neutral in their offering of air fare information. In fact,
Despegar Ecuador even touted a low fare guarantee on the Website.
252.

Despegar Ecuadors scheme was blatant and notorious. Despegar Ecuador harmed

both the business reputation of American and diminished the value of the American Airlines
Marks.
253.

Potential consumers thus were being improperly diverted from American to other

airlines mistakenly believing that American is charging a higher airfare for the travel they

-63MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 64 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

sought. Actual consumers were deceived into paying an unnecessary and mischaracterized
amount for travel booked through the Website.
254.

Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this lawsuit, Despegar

Ecuador had agreements with GDSs whereby additional volume booking incentives are paid to
Despegar Ecuador based on the volume of bookings completed through a particular GDS. These
agreements are believed to provide greater incentives to Despegar Ecuador for booking flights on
airlines that exclusively use the same GDS that provides the incentive to Despegar Ecuador.
Because American Airlines has relationships with multiple GDSs, by booking flights on
American, such bookings would not count toward the GDS volume incentives. Despegar
Ecuador thus has attempted to divert some consumers to airlines other than American in order to
maximize the incentive payments it would receive from a GDS.
255.

From in or around at least its incorporation (the exact dates of which are known to

Despegar Ecuador but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American
discontinued the booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit,
because Despegar Ecuador did not have a supplemental commission agreement with American
or because it sought a more lucrative commission agreement, it was shifting many bookings for
American Airlines flights to travel agencies who have such authority and agreement. It did so in
order to complete unauthorized transactions and increase the commissions paid by American to
these agencies (whose identities are known to Despegar Ecuador). The exact number of bookings
shifted by Despegar Ecuador is known to Despegar Ecuador, but not to Plaintiff. Upon
information and belief, Despegar Ecuador improperly entered into arrangements with such
agencies to obtain a share of the supplemental commissions paid by American.

-64MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 65 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

256.

Despegar Ecuadors actions, individually or through its agents as described above,

constitute a false or misleading representation of fact in an advertisement/promotion on the


Website concerning American Airlines fares by wrongfully and falsely attributing to American
Airlines certain fare prices and fees as being charged by American when in fact that is not the
case.
257.

Alternatively, even if the information on the Website were literally true or

ambiguous, it has the tendency to mislead or deceive consumers. The information regarding fare
prices and fees on the Website is deceptive in the manner displayed to consumers and misleading
in context.
258.

Despegar Ecuadors representations regarding fare prices and fee information

relating to American as displayed on the Website has deceived and has a tendency to deceive
consumers by materially influencing each consumers air fare purchasing decision.
259.

Despegar Ecuadors representations specifically solicit consumers in interstate

commerce.
260.

Upon information and belief, Despegar Ecuador willfully and maliciously

modified the Website in the manner described above to misrepresent fare prices and fees as
retaliation for Americans decision not to offer Defendants a lucrative supplemental commission
agreement for ticketed fares.
261.

Despegar Ecuadors actions have harmed and continue to harm American Airlines

and also its actual or potential consumers. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
262.

By virtue of their aforementioned acts, Despegar Ecuador has violated Section

43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).

-65MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 66 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

COUNT XII
VIOLATION OF LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)
(Vicarious Infringement For False Advertising Despegar Parent Company)
263.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through

76 above, as if set forth herein.


264.

Section 1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act provides in part:


(a) (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or
services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word,
term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any
false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact,
or false or misleading representation of fact, which
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the
nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her
or another persons goods, services, or commercial activities, shall
be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she
is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

265.

At all times relevant hereto, the Despegar Parent Company and each other

Defendant had an apparent or actual partnership, as shown by, among other things:
a. Each other Defendant is a subsidiary of the Despegar Parent Company. The
Despegar Parent Company would infuse each other Defendant with funds and
would siphon profits earned by each other Defendant.
b. The Despegar Parent Company would cause Despegar USA to loan monies to
other Defendants from bank accounts located in Florida.
c. Each other Defendant had the authority to bind all Defendantsincluding the
Despegar Parent Companyin transactions with third parties. These
transactions were made in the name of a non-existent entity (Despegar.com),
under which all Defendants operated. Despegar.com, Inc. was the former

-66MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 67 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

name of the Despegar Parent Company and, upon information and belief, this
is the reason Defendants operate under the name Despegar.com.
d. The Despegar Parent Company has answered for wrongful conduct of its
subsidiaries, including the payment of fines imposed by governments and/or
governmental authorities both in the United States and in foreign countries.
e. The Despegar Parent Company retained decision-making authority regarding
strategy and financial matters of each other Defendant.
f. The Despegar Parent Company and each other Defendant share common
officers, agents, or representatives who make operational and other decisions
for Defendants that are directed by the Despegar Parent Company.
g. The Despegar Parent Company intentionally structured all of Defendants
operations so as to create a web of interdependent partnerships to operate what
it touts as the largest online travel agency in Latin America operating under
the name of Despegar.com. This non-existent entity enters into contracts on
behalf of all subsidiaries and the Despegar Parent Company. Thus, Defendants
present what appears to be a unified organization to the outside world, while
maintaining nominally distinct interdependent companies to carry out the
tortious acts as described herein.
266.

The Despegar Parent Company had sufficient control over each other Defendant

to control each Defendants infringing use of the American Airlines Marks.


267.

The Despegar Parent Companys control over all its subsidiaries was so

substantial, that it is akin to join ownership of the means of infringement, such as the Website
and the servers hosting the Website, which are located in Miami-Dade, Florida.

-67MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 68 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

268.

By instructing, advising, or directing each other Defendant to infringe the

American Airlines Marks, and by failing to take steps to monitor and prevent the activities of
each other Defendant, the Despegar Parent Company unlawfully intended to infringe the
Americans Airlines Marks.
269.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to the

Despegar Parent Company but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American
discontinued the booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, the
Despegar Parent Company caused the Website to artificially inflate the air fares actually charged
by American Airlines for travel to or from Florida, and to or from other locations, by including
in the purported American fare amount a portion of a fee charged by the other Defendants. This
additional fee was not separately disclosed to the potential or actual consumer on the Website at
any stagesearch, display, booking, or purchaseas being part of the fee actually charged by
Defendants and not by American. In this manner, the Despegar Parent Company caused the other
Defendants to misrepresent the air fare prices allegedly charged by American on the Website for
many, if not all, of Americans flights. These misrepresentations were made to actual or potential
consumers who searched for flights on routes for which American Airlines offered service. Upon
information and belief, the Despegar Parent Company caused the other Defendants to display
these misrepresented air fare prices to thousands of actual or potential consumers.
270.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to the

Despegar Parent Company but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American
discontinued the booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, the
Despegar Parent Company also caused each other Defendant to charge higher fees for many, if
not all, bookings on American Airlines flights. Defendants did not charge those same fees for

-68MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 69 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

tickets booked through the Website with other carriers for similar travel. Upon information and
belief, the Despegar Parent Company caused the other Defendants to charge higher booking fees
for American Airlines flights to thousands of consumers.
271.

By varying the fees in this manner, the Despegar Parent Company improperly

discriminated against American while appearing to be neutral in their offering of air fare
information. In fact, the Despegar Parent Companythrough the other Defendantseven touted
a low fare guarantee on the Website.
272.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to the

Despegar Parent Company but not to Plaintiff), and until American discontinued the booking
authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, The Despegar Parent
Company caused Despegar USA to improperly use and display Americans Marks on the
Website.
273.

The Despegar Parent Companys conduct was blatant and notorious. The

Despegar Parent Company harmed both the business reputation of American and diminished the
value of the American Airlines Marks.
274.

Potential consumers thus were being improperly diverted from American to other

airlines mistakenly believing that American is charging a higher airfare for the travel they
sought. Actual consumers were deceived into paying an unnecessary and mischaracterized
amount for travel booked through the Website.
275.

Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this lawsuit, the Despegar

Parent Companythrough the other Defendantshad agreements with GDSs whereby


additional volume booking incentives are paid to Defendants based on the volume of bookings
completed through a particular GDS. These agreements are believed to provide greater

-69MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 70 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

incentives to Defendants for booking flights on airlines that exclusively use the same GDS that
provides the incentive to Defendants. Because American Airlines has relationships with multiple
GDSs, by booking flights on American, such bookings would not count toward the GDS volume
incentives. The Despegar Parent Company thus has caused or attempted to cause the diversion of
some consumers to airlines other than American in order to maximize the incentive payments
from a GDS.
276.

Because Despegar USA did not have booking authority and because other

Defendants did not have a supplemental commission agreement with American (or sought a
more lucrative agreement with American), from in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of
which are known to the Despegar Parent Company but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans
Marks until American discontinued the booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and
filed this lawsuit, the Despegar Parent Company caused many bookings for American Airlines
flights to be shifted to travel agencies who have such authority and supplemental commission
agreements. It did so in order to complete unauthorized transactions and increase the
commissions paid by American to these agencies (whose identities are known the Despegar
Parent Company). The exact number of bookings shifted by Defendants is known to the
Despegar Parent Company, but not to Plaintiff. Upon information and belief, the Despegar
Parent Companythrough the other Defendantsimproperly entered into arrangements with
such agencies to obtain a share of the supplemental commissions paid by American.
277.

Upon information and belief, as retaliation for Americans decision not to offer

Defendants a lucrative supplemental commission agreement for ticketed fares, the Despegar
Parent Company willfully and maliciously (i) caused the Website to be modified to misrepresent
fares and fees and to shift bookings as described in paragraphs 59 through 65 above, (ii) caused

-70MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 71 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

Despegar USA to be provided with access to Americans flight information for display on its
Website, and (iii) caused Despegar USA directly or indirectly to book tickets on American
Airlines flights.
278.

The Despegar Parent Companys actions have harmed and continue to harm

American Airlines and also its actual or potential consumers. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at
law.
279.

By virtue of their aforementioned acts, the Despegar Parent Company has

engaged in vicarious violations of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).
COUNT XIII
VIOLATION OF LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)
(Contributory Infringement For False Advertising Despegar Parent Company)
280.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through

76 above, as if set forth herein.


281.

Section 1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act provides in part:


(a) (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or
services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word,
term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any
false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact,
or false or misleading representation of fact, which
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the
nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her
or another persons goods, services, or commercial activities, shall
be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she
is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

282.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to the

Despegar Parent Company but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American
discontinued the booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, the

-71MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 72 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

Despegar Parent Company caused the Website to artificially inflate the air fares actually charged
by American Airlines for travel to or from Florida, and to or from other locations, by including
in the purported American fare amount a portion of a fee charged by the other Defendants, as
described in paragraphs 59 through 60, above. This additional fee was not separately disclosed to
the potential or actual consumer on the Website at any stagesearch, display, booking, or
purchaseas being part of the fee actually charged by Defendants and not by American. In this
manner, the Despegar Parent Company caused the other Defendants to misrepresent the air fare
prices allegedly charged by American on the Website for many, if not all, of Americans flights.
These misrepresentations were made to actual or potential consumers who searched for flights on
routes for which American Airlines offered service. Upon information and belief, the Despegar
Parent Company caused the other Defendants to display these misrepresented air fare prices to
thousands of actual or potential consumers.
283.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to the

Despegar Parent Company but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks until American
discontinued the booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, the
Despegar Parent Company also caused each Other Defendant to charge higher fees for many, if
not all, bookings on American Airlines flights, as described in paragraphs 61 through 62, above.
Defendants did not charge those same fees for tickets booked through the Website with other
carriers for similar travel. Upon information and belief, the Despegar Parent Company caused
the other Defendants to charge higher booking fees for American Airlines flights to thousands of
consumers.
284.

By varying the fees in this manner, the Despegar Parent Company improperly

discriminated against American while appearing to be neutral in their offering of air fare

-72MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 73 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

information. In fact, the Despegar Parent Company causedthrough the other Defendantsa
low fare guarantee to be touted on the Website.
285.

From in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which are known to the

Despegar Parent Company but not to Plaintiff), and until American discontinued the booking
authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed this lawsuit, the Despegar Parent Company
caused Despegar USA to improperly use and display Americans Marks on the Website.
286.

The Despegar Parent Companys conduct was blatant and notorious. The

Despegar Parent Company harmed both the business reputation of American and diminished the
value of the American Airlines Marks.
287.

Potential consumers thus were being improperly diverted from American to other

airlines mistakenly believing that American is charging a higher airfare for the travel they
sought. Actual consumers were deceived into paying an unnecessary and mischaracterized
amount for travel booked through the Website.
288.

Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this lawsuit, the Despegar

Parent Companythrough the other Defendantshad agreements with GDSs whereby


additional volume booking incentives are paid to Defendants based on the volume of bookings
completed through a particular GDS. These agreements are believed to provide greater
incentives to Defendants for booking flights on airlines that exclusively use the same GDS that
provides the incentive to Defendants. Because American Airlines has relationships with multiple
GDSs, by booking flights on American, such bookings would not count toward the GDS volume
incentives. The Despegar Parent Company thus has caused or attempted to cause the diversion of
some consumers to airlines other than American in order to maximize the incentive payments
from a GDS.

-73MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 74 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

289.

Because Despegar USA did not have booking authority and because other

Defendants did not have a supplemental commission agreement with American (or sought a
more lucrative commission agreement), from in or around at least 2011 (the exact dates of which
are known to the Despegar Parent Company but not to Plaintiff), and using Americans Marks
until American discontinued the booking authority of the Authorized Despegar OTAs and filed
this lawsuit, the Despegar Parent Company caused many bookings for American Airlines flights
to be shifted to travel agencies who have such authority and supplemental commission
agreements. It did so in order to complete unauthorized transactions and increase the
commissions paid by American to these agencies (whose identities are known the Despegar
Parent Company). The exact number of bookings shifted by Defendants is known to the
Despegar Parent Company, but not to Plaintiff. Upon information and belief, the Despegar
Parent Companythrough the other Defendantsimproperly entered into arrangements with
such agencies to obtain a share of the supplemental commissions paid by American.
290.

Upon information and belief, as retaliation for Americans decision not to offer

Defendants a lucrative supplemental commission agreement for ticketed fares, the Despegar
Parent Company willfully and maliciously (i) caused the Website to be modified to misrepresent
fares and fees and to shift bookings as described in paragraphs 59 through 65, above, (ii) caused
Despegar USA to be provided with access to Americans flight information for display on its
Website, and (iii) caused Despegar USA directly or indirectly to book tickets on American
Airlines flights.
291.

Upon information and belief, the Despegar Parent Company intentionally induced

the other Defendants to infringe the American Airlines Marks in order to obtain profit therefrom.
The Despegar Parent Company knew through the common officers, directors, or representatives

-74MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 75 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

that reported to the Despegar Parent Company, that the other Defendants were not authorized to
display the American Airlines Marks on the Website in a deceptive, misleading, or confusing
manner. Nonetheless, the Despegar Parent Company directed and permitted Defendants to do so
and supported Defendants continuing infringement of American Marks.
292.

The Despegar Parent Company intended to participate in Defendants infringing

conduct, actually knew of the infringing activities, and continued to supply Defendants with the
means by which they infringed Plaintiffs Marks as described in paragraph 290.
293.

The Despegar Parent Company and Despegar USA both knew that Despegar USA

did not receive Plaintiffs authorization or consent to use the registered American Airlines Marks
and that it was not authorized to book or ticket American Airlines flights.
294.

The Despegar Parent Company and each other Defendant knew that the prices

displayed on the Website for American Airlines fares were inaccurate.


295.

Further, upon information and belief, under the instruction or control of the

Despegar Parent Company, Defendants willfully and maliciously modified the Website to
accomplish the conduct described above in paragraphs 59 through 65 to harm American Airlines.
296.

The Despegar Parent Company willfully and maliciously intentionally induced

each other Defendant to use Plaintiffs registered American Airlines Marks with knowledge that
such use was intended to cause confusion, mistake, or deception.
297.

The Despegar Parent Company was able to derive substantial profits due to the

unauthorized misuse of Americans Marks. In fact, upon information and belief, the Despegar
Parent Company so benefitted from its activities, that it has plans to make an initial public
offering (IPO).

-75MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 76 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

298.

American Airlines has suffered harm, including but not limited to loss of profits

and damages, as a direct result of the Despegar Parent Companys contributory infringement of
American Airlines Marks.
299.

The Despegar Parent Companys actions have harmed and continue to harm

American Airlines and also its actual or potential consumers. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at
law.
300.

By virtue of their aforementioned acts, the Despegar Parent Company has

engaged in contributory violations of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).
COUNT XIV
VIOLATION OF LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1114(1)
(Contributory Infringement Despegar Parent Company)
301.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through

76 above, as if set forth herein.


302.

As set forth in Count II, above, Despegar USA made illegal, infringing, and

unauthorized use of the registered American Airlines Marks in connection with the sale, offering
for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on the Website in connection with
information about American Airlines flights. Potential consumers were drawn to Despegar
USAs Website because of the use of Americans Marks and the display of American Airlines
flight information. These consumers could then select and book American Airlines flights on
Despegar USAs Website even though Despegar USA could not process such reservations.
303.

Upon information and belief, the Despegar Parent Company intentionally induced

Despegar USA to infringe the American Airlines Marks in order to obtain profit therefrom. The
Despegar Parent Company knew through at least one common officer (Fiori) that it shares with
Despegar USA that the latter was not authorized to display the American Airlines Marks on the

-76MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 77 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

Website. Nonetheless, the Despegar Parent Company directed Despegar USA to do so and
supported Despegar USAs continuing infringement of American Marks.
304.

Further, despite knowing that Despegar USA was not authorized to display, book,

sell, or ticket travel on American Airlines, the Despegar Parent Company caused one or more of
the Authorized Despegar OTAs to provide American Airlines flight information to Despegar
USA and to process bookings made by Despegar USA in order to continue to lure users to
Despegar USAs Website, from which the Despegar Parent Company was able to derive
substantial profits due to the unauthorized misuse of American Airlines Marks. In fact, upon
information and belief, the Despegar Parent Company so benefitted from its activities, that it has
plans to make an initial public offering (IPO).
305.

Upon information and belief, as retaliation for Americans decision not to offer

Defendants a lucrative supplemental commission agreement for ticketed fares, the Despegar
Parent Company willfully and maliciously (i) caused the Website to be modified to misrepresent
fares and fees and to shift bookings as described in paragraphs 59 through 65, above, (ii) caused
Despegar USA to be provided with access to Americans flight information for display on its
Website, and (iii) caused Despegar USA directly or indirectly to book tickets on American
Airlines flights.
306.

Upon information and belief, the Despegar Parent Company intentionally induced

the other Defendants to infringe the American Airlines Marks in order to obtain profit therefrom.
The Despegar Parent Company knew through the common officers, directors, or representatives
that reported to the Despegar Parent Company, that the other Defendants were not authorized to
display the American Airlines Marks on the Website in a deceptive, misleading or confusing

-77MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 78 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

manner. Nonetheless, the Despegar Parent Company directed and permitted Defendants to do so
and supported Defendants continuing infringement of American Marks.
307.

The Despegar Parent Company intended to participate in Defendants infringing

conduct, actually knew of the infringing activities, and continued to supply Defendants with the
means by which they infringed Plaintiffs Marks as described in paragraph 305.
308.

The Despegar Parent Company and Despegar USA both knew that Despegar USA

did not receive Plaintiffs consent to use the registered American Airlines Marks and that it was
not authorized to book or ticket American Airlines flights.
309.

The Despegar Parent Company and Despegar USA both knew that the prices

displayed by Despegar USA on the Website for American Airlines fares were inaccurate.
310.

Further, upon information and belief, under the instruction or control of the

Despegar Parent Company, Defendants willfully and maliciously modified the Website to
accomplish the conduct described above in paragraphs 59 through 65 to harm American Airlines.
311.

The Despegar Parent Company intentionally induced Despegar USA to use

Plaintiffs registered American Airlines Marks with knowledge that such use was intended to
cause confusion, mistake, or deception.
312.

American Airlines has suffered harm, including but not limited to loss of profits

and damages, as a direct result of the Despegar Parent Companys contributory infringement of
American Airlines Marks.
313.

By virtue of the aforementioned acts, the Despegar Parent Company has engaged

in contributory violation of Title 15, United States Code, Section 1114(1).

-78MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 79 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

COUNT XV
VIOLATION OF LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1114(1)
(Vicarious Infringement Despegar Parent Company)
314.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through

76 above, as if set forth herein.


315.

As set forth in Count II, above, Despegar USA made illegal, infringing, and

unauthorized use of the registered American Airlines Marks in connection with the sale, offering
for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on the Website in connection with
information about American Airlines flights. Potential consumers were drawn to Despegar
USAs Website because of the use of Americans Marks and the display of American Airlines
flight information. These consumers could then select and book American Airlines flights on
Despegar USAs Website even though Despegar USA could not process such reservations.
316.

At all times relevant hereto, Despegar USA and the Despegar Parent Company

had an apparent or actual partnership, as shown by, among other things:


a. Despegar USA is a subsidiary of the Despegar Parent Company. The
Despegar Parent Company would infuse Despegar USA with funds and would
siphon profits earned by Despegar USA.
b. The Despegar Parent Company caused Despegar USA to make loans to other
Defendants from bank accounts in Miami-Dade.
c. Despegar USA had the authority to bind all Defendantsincluding the
Despegar Parent Companyin transactions with third parties. These
transactions were made in the name of a non-existent entity (Despegar.com),
under which all Defendants operated. Despegar.com, Inc. was the former

-79MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 80 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

name of the Despegar Parent company. Upon information and belief, this is
the reason all Defendants operate under the name Despegar.com.
d. The Despegar Parent Company has answered for wrongful conduct of its
subsidiaries, including the payment of fines imposed by governments and/or
governmental authorities both in the United States and in foreign countries.
e. The Despegar Parent Company retained decision-making authority regarding
strategy and financial matters of Despegar USA.
f. The Despegar Parent Company and Despegar USA share at least one officer
(Fiori) who made operational and other decisions for Despegar USA that are
directed by the Despegar Parent Company.
g. The Despegar Parent Company intentionally structured all of Defendants
operations so as to create a web of interdependent partnerships to operate what
it touts as the largest online travel agency in Latin America operating under
the name of Despegar.com. This non-existent entity enters into contracts on
behalf of all subsidiaries and the Despegar Parent Company. Thus, Defendants
present what appears to be a unified organization to the outside world, while
maintaining nominally distinct interdependent companies to carry out the
tortious acts as described herein.
317.

The Despegar Parent Company had sufficient control over Despegar USA to

control Despegar USAs infringing use of the American Airlines Marks.


318.

The Despegar Parent Companys control over all its subsidiaries, including

Despegar USA, was so substantial that it is akin to join ownership of the means of infringement,

-80MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 81 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

such as the Website and the servers hosting the Website, which are located in Miami-Dade,
Florida.
319.

Upon information and belief, the Despegar Parent Company intentionally induced

Despegar USA to infringe the American Airlines Marks in order to obtain profit therefrom. The
Despegar Parent Company knew through at least one common officer (Fiori) that it shares with
Despegar USA that the latter was not authorized to display the American Airlines Marks on the
Website. Nonetheless, the Despegar Parent Company directed Despegar USA to do so and
supported Despegar USAs continuing infringement of American Marks.
320.

Further, despite knowing that Despegar USA was not authorized to display, book,

sell, or ticket travel on American Airlines, the Despegar Parent Company caused one or more of
the Authorized Despegar OTAs to provide American Airlines flight information to Despegar
USA and to process bookings made by Despegar USA in order to continue to lure users to
Despegar USAs Website, from which the Despegar Parent Company was able to derive
substantial profits due to the unauthorized misuse of American Airlines Marks. In fact, upon
information and belief, the Despegar Parent Company so benefitted from its activities, that it has
plans to make an initial public offering (IPO).
321.

Upon information and belief, as retaliation for Americans decision not to offer

Defendants a lucrative supplemental commission agreement for ticketed fares, the Despegar
Parent Company willfully and maliciously (i) caused the Website to be modified to misrepresent
fares and fees and shift bookings as described in paragraphs 59 through 65, above, (ii) caused
Despegar USA to be provided with access to Americans flight information for display on its
Website, and (iii) caused Despegar USA directly or indirectly to book tickets on American
Airlines flights.

-81MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 82 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

322.

Upon information and belief, the Despegar Parent Company intentionally induced

the other Defendants to infringe the American Airlines Marks in order to obtain profit therefrom.
The Despegar Parent Company knew through the common officers, directors, or representatives
that reported to the Despegar Parent Company, that the other Defendants were not authorized to
display the American Airlines Marks on the Website in a deceptive, misleading, or confusing
manner. Nonetheless, the Despegar Parent Company directed and permitted Defendants to do so
and supported Defendants continuing infringement of American Marks.
323.

The Despegar Parent Company intended to participate in Defendants infringing

conduct, actually knew of the infringing activities, and continued to supply Defendants with the
means by which they infringed Plaintiffs Marks as described in paragraph 321.
324.

The Despegar Parent Company and Despegar USA both knew that Despegar USA

did not receive Plaintiffs consent to use the registered American Airlines Marks and that it was
not authorized to book or ticket American Airlines flights.
325.

The Despegar Parent Company and Despegar USA both knew that the prices

displayed by Despegar USA on the Website for American Airlines fares were inaccurate.
326.

Further, upon information and belief, under the instruction or control of the

Despegar Parent Company, Defendants willfully and maliciously modified the Website to
accomplish the conduct described above in paragraphs 59 through 65 to harm American Airlines.
327.

By instructing, advising or directing Despegar USA to infringe of American

Airlines Marks, and by failing to take steps to monitor and prevent the activities Despegar USA,
The Parent Company unlawfully intended to infringe on Americans Airlines Marks.
328.

By virtue of the aforementioned acts, the Despegar Parent Company is vicariously

liable for Despegar USAs violation of Title 15, United States Code, Section 1114(1).

-82MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 83 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

PRAYER FOR RELIEF


WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants and relief as follows:
1.

That, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1116, 501.211(1) of FDUPTA and Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 65, Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, licensors,
licensees, attorneys, successors, related companies, parent companies, and assigns, and all those
in active concert or participation with them, be permanently enjoined and restrained from:
a.

Using the American Airlines or AA designation, or any confusingly

similar mark or designation, in connection with the marketing, promotion, and sale of
travel-related goods or services;
b.

Engaging in any conduct that is likely to induce the mistaken belief that

the fees and fares attributable to American Airlines on Defendants Websites are in any
way approved or sponsored by, or affiliated with, Plaintiff;
c.

Unfairly competing with Plaintiff in any manner whatsoever; and

d.

Using or causing harm to the American Airlines Marks, or causing injury

to the business reputation of Plaintiff.


2.

That, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1116, Defendants be directed to file with the Court

and serve upon Plaintiff within thirty (30) days after issuance of an injunction, a report in writing
and under oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendants have complied
with the injunction.
3.

That Plaintiff be awarded monetary relief in an amount to be fixed by the Court in

its discretion as just, including:


a.

All profits received by Defendants from sales and revenues of any kind

made as a result of their infringing actions, said amount to be trebled;

-83MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 84 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

b.

All damages sustained by Plaintiff as a result of Defendants acts of

infringement, unfair competition, and dilution, including the diversion of business from
American Airlines, and that such damages be trebled;

5.

c.

Statutory damages as permitted; and

d.

Punitive damages, in view of the willful nature of Defendants acts.

That, because of the exceptional nature of this case resulting from Defendants

deliberate infringing actions, the Court award Plaintiff all reasonable attorneys fees and costs
incurred as a result of this action, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117.
6.

Plaintiff shall have such other and further relief as this Court may deem just.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND


Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: January 8, 2015

BY: /s/ Humberto H. Ocariz


Humberto H. Ocariz
Florida Bar No.: 0740860
hocariz@shb.com
Michael A. Holt
Florida Bar No.: 91156
mholt@shb.com
Eric S. Boos
Florida Bar No.: 0107673
eboos@shb.com
SHOOK HARDY & BACON, LLP
201 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3200
Miami, Florida 33131
PH: (305) 358-5171 / FX: (305) 358-7470
Charles P. Diamond
cdiamond@omm.com

-84MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 85 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

Admitted Pro Hac Vice


Alicia Hancock
ahancock@omm.com
Admitted Pro Hac Vice
OMELVENY & MYERS LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars
Seventh Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 246-6700
Facsimile: (310) 246-6779
Andrew Frackman
afrackman@omm.com
Admitted Pro Hac Vice
David Lukmire
dlukmire@omm.com
Admitted Pro Hac Vice
OMELVENY & MYERS LLP
Times Square Tower
7 Times Square
New York, New York 10036
Telephone: (212) 326-2000
Facsimile: (212) 326-2061b

-85MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 86 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 8th day of January, 2015, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF and a true and correct copy of
the foregoing was served on all counsel or parties of record on the Service List below by the
method indicated.
/s/ Humberto H. Ocariz
Humberto H. Ocariz

-86MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

Case 1:13-cv-22773-DPG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2015 Page 87 of 87


CASE NO.: 13-22773-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

SERVICE LIST
Humberto H. Ocariz, Esq.
hocariz@shb.com
Michael A. Holt, Esq.
mholt@shb.com
Eric S. Boos, Esq.
eboos@shb.com
Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP
Miami Center, Suite 3200
201 South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone: (305) 358-5171
Facsimile: (305) 358-7470
Attorneys for Plaintiff American Airlines,
Inc.
(Service via CM/ECF)

Patrick E. Gonya, Jr., Esq.


pgonya@careyrodriguez.com
Carey Rodriguez Greenberg OKeefe,
LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone: (305) 372-7474
Facsimile: (305) 372-7475
Attorneys for Defendants
(Service via CM/ECF)
Marc L. Greenwald, Esq.
marcgreenwald@quinnemanuel.com
Todd Anten, Esq.
toddanten@quinnemanuel.com
Steig D. Olson, Esq.
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, New York 10010
Telephone: (212) 849 7000
Facsimile: (212) 849 7100
Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for Defendants
(Service via CM/ECF)

Charles P. Diamond, Esq.


cdiamond@omm.com
Alicia Hancock, Esq.
ahancock@omm.com
OMelveny & Myers LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars
Seventh Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 246-6700
Facsimile: (310) 246-6779
and
Andrew Frackman, Esq.
afrackman@omm.com
David Lukmire, Esq.
dlukmire@omm.com
OMelveny & Myers LLP
Times Square Tower
7 Times Square
New York, New York 10036
Telephone: (212) 326-2000
Facsimile: (212) 326-2061
Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for Plaintiff
American Airlines, Inc.
(Service via CM/ECF)

-87MIAMI CENTER, SUITE 3200, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-4332 TELEPHONE (305) 358-5171

750362

You might also like