Venetian restaurant owner found in contempt in trademark dispute

Tuesday, Aug. 15, 2000 | 10:59 a.m.

A federal judge found the owner of the Venetian's Italian restaurant Valentino in contempt for violating a Nov. 30 order to stop using the Valentino name for its restaurant.

The order was issued against Valentino Las Vegas LLC and its owner Pierro Selvaggio.

U.S. District Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson warned that "the court will not tolerate future violations" of the order.

Rawlinson wrote in an Aug. 4 order that future violations may result in "greater monetary sanctions and may result in the entry of a default judgement against the defendant."

Valentino's of America Inc., Val Ltd. and two subsidiaries sued Valentino Las Vegas LLC on Oct. 1, 1999, alleging it infringed its trademark rights when it opened its restaurant in the Las Vegas Strip resort in July 1999.

Valentino's of America said it had denied the Las Vegas company's request for permission to use its trademark in Las Vegas.

Valentino Las Vegas, which was required to respond to the lawsuit by Oct. 19, instead asked to discuss a settlement, the order said.

The order said Valentino's of America's counsel agreed to take no further action unless settlement negotiations reached an impasse.

But the federal court entered the injunction on Nov. 30, 1999, because it wasn't informed of this agreement and Valentino Las Vegas didn't oppose the injunction within a deadline, the order said.

Valentino's, however, agreed not to serve the injunction order until after considering Valentino Las Vegas's settlement offer. But settlement negotiations broke down and Valentino's served the injunction order on Feb. 2, the order said.

"We intend to challenge that order, and even if the order stands, there still hasn't been a trial. There has been no final determination yet that Valentino Las Vegas is infringing the plaintiffs' trademark," said Paul Roberts, the defendant's attorney.

"We would obviously prefer not to change the name of the restaurant," he said. "We intend to file a motion in federal court to get a stay of that order until we can be heard in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals."