Dorpan, S.L. v. Hotel Melia, Inc.
851 F. Supp. 2d 398
D.P.R.2012Background
- HMI filed suit in Puerto Rico seeking exclusive use of the Meliá name in hotels; DS D (Dorpan, Sol Meliá, Desarrolladora) removed and actions consolidated with a related declaratory judgment action by Dorpan regarding Gran Meliá in Rio Grande.
- DSD seeks a federal trademark-based right to use Gran Meliá and related marks; HMI moves for partial summary judgment on issue/claim preclusion.
- The court granted DSD’s summary judgment on the suites of its claim; it denied HMI’s partial summary judgment on preclusion.
- Key corporate players: Sol Meliá (Spanish hotel group) and its entity Dorpan (holding/trademark rights), with Desarrolladora operating Gran Meliá in Puerto Rico, and HMI as a Puerto Rico hotel owner.
- The court analyzed whether Dorpan is in privity with Inmobiliaria Meliá (the 1978 Puerto Rico case party) and whether preclusion applies, then evaluated the validity and territorial scope of Dorpan’s Gran Meliá registrations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dorpan is successor in interest to Inmobiliaria for preclusion. | HMI argues Dorpan is in privity as successor to Inmobiliaria. | DSD contends no proven succession or privity with Inmobiliaria. | Dorpan not shown to be successor; privity not established. |
| Whether claim or issue preclusion bars DSD’s current claims. | HMI seeks preclusion based on 1978 default judgment. | DSD asserts no identical parties, no merits-based judgment, and no essential issue preclusion. | Preclusion does not bar DSD’s claims. |
| Validity and enforceability of Dorpan’s Meliá trademarks in Puerto Rico. | HMI challenges registration as fraudulent and seeks to preclude Dorpan. | DSD’s registrations valid; incontestability defense and limited-area exception considered. | DSD’s trademarks valid; co-existence with HMI allowed with geographic limits. |
| Can the two uses of Meliá co-exist in Puerto Rico without confusion? | Gran Meliá harms HMI’s exclusive right to the Meliá name in PR. | Factors support co-existence; no single factor dispositive. | Yes; uses may co-exist with geographic boundaries. |
| What geographic scope limits apply to HMI and DSD after ruling? | HMI may continue in Ponce; Dorpan may use rest of PR and U.S.; HMI’s use frozen in Ponce. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard; burden-shifting framework)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (material facts and credibility not weighed at summary judgment)
- Thrifty Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v. Thrift Cars, Inc., 831 F.2d 1177 (1st Cir. 1987) (limited-area incontestability defense under § 1115(b)(5))
- Venture Tape Corp. v. McGills Glass Warehouse, 540 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2008) (eight-factor test for likelihood of confusion)
- In re Bush, 62 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 1995) (preclusion effects of a default judgment when appropriate)