Kerzner International Ltd. v. Monarch Casino & Resort, Inc.
United States District Court for the District of Nevada
675 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (2009)
Atlantis Lodge, Inc. (Lodge) had federally registered the mark “Atlantis” for lodging services. In October 1994, Lodge licensed the Atlantis mark to Kerzner International Ltd. and Kerzner International Resorts (Kerzner) (plaintiff) for use in the grand reopening of Kerzner’s casino resort in The Bahamas under the name “Atlantis, Paradise Island.” Kerzner extensively advertised the casino in the United States, and the media covered the casino’s reopening in December 1994. Monarch Casino & Resort, Inc. (Monarch) (defendant) had used the Atlantis mark in connection with restaurant and other services at its Reno, Nevada resort since 1992. In February 1996, Lodge licensed the Atlantis mark to Monarch for use in connection with lodging services. In April 1996, Monarch’s resort began operating under the name “Atlantis Casino Resort.” Kerzner subsequently acquired the Atlantis mark from Lodge and federally registered the mark for casino services, claiming that the mark was first used for casino services in October 1994. Subsequently, Kerzner and Monarch each developed plans to open Las Vegas casino resorts under the Atlantis mark, and a dispute arose over which could use the mark. Kerzner sued Monarch for trademark infringement in federal court in Nevada. Monarch filed a partial-summary-judgment motion, asserting that Monarch had priority of use of the Atlantis mark for casino services in the United States. The district court found that Monarch had first used the mark for casino services in April 1996, reasoning that Monarch’s 1992 use of the mark for restaurant services was not so closely related to casino services that one would naturally expect Monarch’s use of the mark to expand into the casino-services field. Monarch asserted that even using the April 1996 date, Monarch had priority of use under the territoriality principle (i.e., the principle that priority of use depends only on United States use) because Kerzner’s 1994 use of the mark had occurred in The Bahamas.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Reed, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 707,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 707,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.