Park Place wins suit over Colosseum name

Grace Leong

Tuesday, March 11, 2003 | 11:19 a.m.

A federal judge has ordered a New Jersey man to stop using the trademark-protected name "Colosseum," which is part of the Caesars Palace resort on the Las Vegas Strip.

Caesars owner Park Place Entertainment Corp., which says it has used the Colosseum name for more than 30 years to identify its convention, exhibition and entertainment center at Caesars Palace, had sued Cyrus Milanian and his company, The New Las Vegas Development Co. LLC, in U.S. District Court.

Park Place said Milanian had filed to register the Colosseum trademark almost immediately after Park Place announced plans last April to build a new Colosseum at Caesars Palace. He allegedly threatened to bring trademark infringement claims against Park Place just before this month's opening of the new Colosseum, where Celine Dion will perform.

Milanian and his attorney, Andras Babero, denied the allegations.

"Milanian filed the trademarks and patents for the Colosseum name in 1999 and Park Place filed it after that," Babero said.

But U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt last month found Milanian's "calculated application for the Colosseum mark just after the announcement of the Colosseum showroom, as well as his concealing of a claim in these alleged rights to the mark until just days after the announcement of its opening with Celine Dion performing, demonstrates that his objective was to hold plaintiffs hostage."

"(The) plaintiffs demonstrated that Milanian's attempt to pirate away their rights in (the) Colosseum mark was part of his overarching plan to traffic in trademarks," Hunt wrote. "His pattern or practice was to file bogus intent-to-use applications for marks, and attempt to sell or license the 'rights' in the marks.

"The Court notes that (Park Place) clearly commenced use of the Colosseum mark years before Milanian could possibly claim any use. Thus, even if Milanian's intent-to-use applications were not void, he could still not use whatever rights he might obtain to stop a senior user who predated his application filing date," Hunt wrote.

Babero disagreed. "We filed a motion for reconsideration of the judge's ruling last week, and if the judge rules adversely again, we'll file an appeal with the 9th Circuit (Court of Appeals)."