INDEX NO.

651008/2016

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/26/2016 02:12 PM

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2016

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

NEW YORK COUNTY
TRAVELZOO INC.,

Plaintffi

FRESH JETS,INC., FRESH TRIPS LLC,

SAN DIEGO TRAVEL GROUP, INC., and

TIMOTHY WOZNIAK.

Index No,

SUMMONS
Date Index No. Purchased: Feb. 26,2016

Defendants.

To the above named Defendants:

Fresh Jets, Inc.
1732Wazee Street

Fresh Trips LLC

1732Wazee Street

San Diego Travel Group, Inc.

9710 Scranton Road Suite 170
San Diego, California 9212\

Timothy Wozniak
1732Wazee Street
Denver, Colorado 80202

Denver, Colorado 80202

Denver, Colorado 80202

You are hereby summoned to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of
your answer, on the Plaintiff s attorney within 20 days after service of the summons, exclusive of
the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this summons is not
personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear
or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demand in the complaint.
The basis of venue is that Plaintiff s corporate headquarters is located in New York
County, at 590 Madison Avenue, New York, New York.

Dated: New York, New York

February 26,2016

HUNG G. TA, ESQ. PLLC

ung G, Ta, Esq.
hta@hgtlaw.com
250 Park Avenue, Seventh Floor
New York, NY 10177
Tel: 646-453-7288
Fax: 646-453-7289
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Travelzoo, Inc.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

NEW YORK COUNTY
TRAVELZOO INC.,

Index No.

Plaintiff,
-against-

COMPLAINT

FRESH JETS, INC., FRESH TRIPS LLC,

SAN DIEGO TRAVEL GROUP, INC., and
TIMOTHY WOZNIAK,
Defendants.

Plaintiff, Travelzoo Inc. (Travelzoo), for its Complaint against Fresh Jets, Inc. (Fresh
Jets), Fresh Trips LLC (Fresh Trips), San Diego Travel Group, Inc. (San Diego Travel) and
Timothy Wozniak (Wozniak) alleges as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.

This is an action brought by Travelzoo arising from Defendants scheme to falsely

advertise a hotel deal on Travelzoos publications on Cyber Monday for consumers to purchase,
all the while having no intention to actually satisfy the relevant hotel bookings or to pay Travelzoo
for the advertisement.

Rather, Defendants collected consumers monies, made false

representations, and knowingly left many travelers without a promised hotel booking. Even worse,
Defendants scheme caused travelers to be stranded in Mexico without accommodation.
2.

Not only did they deliberately breach the contract they entered into with Travelzoo,

but Defendants Fresh Trips and Mr. Wozniak engaged in a series of deceptive maneuvers designed
to force Travelzoo into spending tremendous resources and capital in an attempt to ameliorate the
damage that Defendants caused. Defendants actions have resulted in substantial costs and
1

reputational damage to Travelzoo, as Travelzoo worked around-the-clock and went to

extraordinary lengths attempting to address the concerns of its customers.
3.

Furthermore, while Travelzoo was trying to rebuild its trust with its members who

were wronged by Defendants conduct, Defendant Fresh Trips continued to falsely tout on the
front page of its website, http://fresh-trips.com/, that Travelzoo is a partner who loves to work
with us. Although Travelzoo repeatedly requested that Defendant Fresh Trips immediately
remove Travelzoos protected trademark from its website (and, especially, any false notion that
Travelzoo was supportive of Defendant Fresh Trips), it was only recently that Fresh Trips
complied.
4.

Travelzoo has suffered greatly due to Defendants improper conduct. Travelzoo

has a valuable and trusted relationship with its members that Defendants exploited to effectuate
their scheme. Travelzoo hereby seeks to recover damages in the hundreds of thousands of dollars,
which will include, among other things, compensatory and consequential damages, punitive
damages, and restitutionary relief. In addition, Travelzoo seeks injunctive relief.
PARTIES
5.

Plaintiff Travelzoo is a publicly traded, global media commerce company that is

incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered at 590 Madison Avenue, New York, New York.
Travelzoo has more than 28 million members in Asia Pacific, Europe, North America and 26
offices worldwide. Since 1998, Travelzoo has been publishing travel deals on its websites,
including travelzoo.com, and sending advertising emails to its members recommending the best
travel deals in the world. Travelzoo is one of the most trusted travel websites for travel,
entertainment and local deals.

6.

Defendant San Diego Travel is located at 9710 Scranton Road, San Diego,

California 92121.

Upon information and belief, George Wozniak and Defendant Timothy

Wozniak are employed by, or act on behalf of, San Diego Travel. George Wozniak is the father
of Defendant Timothy Wozniak.
7.

Defendant Fresh Jets is located at 1732 Wazee Street, Denver, Colorado 80202.

Upon information and belief, Fresh Jets is incorporated in Delaware. Fresh Jets is a travel
technology company providing solutions for the private jet industry and leisure travel market.
8.

Defendant Fresh Trips is located at 1732 Wazee Street, Denver, Colorado 80202.

Upon information and belief, Fresh Trips is incorporated in Colorado. Fresh Trips maintains and
promotes the website, fresh-trips.com, which publicly represents itself as an online travel specialist
that books vacation and hotel accommodations for travelers. Upon information and belief, Fresh
Trips is a subsidiary of Fresh Jets.
9.

Defendant Timothy Wozniak is the founder and chief executive officer of Fresh

Jets and Fresh Trips. At all relevant times, Timothy Wozniak represented that he worked on behalf
of San Diego Travel. George Wozniak, the father of Defendant Timothy Wozniak, was involved
in communications with Travelzoo regarding the inclusion of the promotion on behalf of San
Diego Travel on Travelzoos publications.
JURISDICTION
10.

This Court has jurisdiction over this action and Defendants pursuant to New York

Civil Practice Law & Rules (CPLR) 302 because Defendants conduct business within the State
of New York, and because the action arises out of conduct that took place in the State and County
of New York.

11.

Jurisdiction and venue is also appropriate given that the agreement, dated

November 17, 2015, between Travelzoo and all of Defendants (the Agreement) contained a
forum selection clause under which the parties consent to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State
of New York with respect to any legal proceedings arising in connection with the Agreement.
The Agreement also provided that it would be governed by and construed in accordance with the
law of the State of New York, without giving effect to principles of conflicts of law. See
Agreement 13 (attached hereto as Exhibit A).
12.

Venue is also proper in this County pursuant to CPLR 503 and 509. Travelzoo

is a resident of New York County and designates New York County as the place of trial.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A.

The Agreement With Travelzoo To Advertise A Hotel Promotion On Cyber

Monday
13.

On November 16, 2015, Timothy Wozniak sent an email to Travelzoo, which was

also addressed to George Wozniak, inquiring whether Fresh Trips could advertise a Mexico hotel
booking promotion on Travelzoos publications on Cyber Monday, November 28, 2015 (the
Promotion).
14.

The Promotion offered members a hotel booking at a discounted price at the Royal

Sands Resort & Spa in Cancun, Mexico and at the Royal Haciendas All Suites Resort in Playa del
Carmen, Mexico (collectively, the Royal Resorts). The Promotion is attached hereto as Exhibit
B.
15.

Defendant Timothy Wozniak represented to Travelzoo that the Promotion had the

approval of San Diego Travel, which is a respected travel agency that Travelzoo has worked with
on a number of occasions. Defendant Wozniak also represented that Defendants had the ability to

fulfil the terms of the Promotion. Travelzoo relied on such representations in agreeing to advertise
the Promotion on Travelzoos publications.
16.

On November 17, 2015, Travelzoo entered into the Agreement with all of

Defendants. Defendants agreed to pay Travelzoo twelve thousand dollars ($12,000) for the
Promotion to be included in Travelzoos Cyber Monday advertisement.
17.

Each of Defendants was a party to the Agreement. Defendant San Diego Travel

was the Advertiser under the Agreement, and the Agreement provided that San Diego Travel
was to be billed for the Promotion. On the signature page, the Company signing the Agreement
was San Diego Travel. The signature page of the Agreement also stated that the undersigned
confirms that he/she is authorized to execute this agreement on behalf of the Advertiser.
Defendant Timothy Wozniak provided his signature in the signature block and the email provided
by Mr. Wozniak under his signature was timmy@freshjets.com. In addition, the contact
information for San Diego Travel was provided as Timothy Wozniak of Fresh Jets in Denver,
Colorado. Finally, the Promotion identified Fresh Trips as the provider of the deal.
18.

Before the Agreement was entered into, George Wozniak of San Diego Travel was

a participant in various email communications involving Defendant Timothy Wozniak, Fresh Jets
and Travelzoo, and never disclaimed that Defendant Timothy Wozniak or Fresh Jets was acting
on behalf of or otherwise representing San Diego Travel at all relevant times.
19.

In accordance with the Agreement, Travelzoo published the Promotion on Cyber

Monday, November 28, 2015. Nonetheless, Defendants deliberately breached the Agreement by
failing to pay Travelzoo for its services. To date, Travelzoo has received zero compensation for
publishing the Promotion.

20.

In Section 8 of the Agreement, Defendants expressly represented that they had the

right to publicize the contents of the Promotion without violating the rights of any third party and
without violating any law.
21.

Under Section 8 of the Agreement, Defendants also agreed to a broad

indemnification of Travelzoo. Section 8 of the Agreement states:

Advertiser Representations; Indemnification. Advertisements are accepted
upon the representation that Advertiser has the right to publish the contents of
the advertisement without infringing the rights of any third party and without
violating any law. In consideration for such publication, Advertiser agrees, at
its own expense, to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Travelzoo and its
employees, representatives, agents and affiliates, against any and all expenses
and losses of any kind (including reasonable attorneys fees and costs) incurred
by Travelzoo in connection with any claims, administrative proceedings or
criminal investigations of any kind arising out of publication of the
advertisement and/or any material, product or service of Advertiser to which
users can link through the advertisement (including, without limitation, any
claim of trademark or copyright infringement, defamation, breach of
confidentiality, privacy violation, false or deceptive advertising or sales
practices).
B.

Defendants Fail To Honor The Promotion And Deliberately Breach The Terms Of
The Agreement
22.

Defendants did not honor the Promotion, failed to make the respective hotel

bookings, and deliberately breached the terms of the Agreement.

23.

Upon information and belief, approximately four hundred hotel bookings were

made by consumers with Defendant Fresh Trips pursuant to the Promotion. These travelers paid
Fresh Trips in advance for the hotel bookings at the Royal Resorts in Mexico.
24.

Travelzoo was gravely concerned when it was notified by the Royal Resorts that,

despite Fresh Trips representations and obligations, Fresh Trips had not completed the bookings
for the members who had already paid them in advance under the Promotion.
25.

Travelzoos customer service team was inundated with calls and emails from its

customers who did not receive hotel booking confirmations from Fresh Trips, or worse, travelled
6

to Mexico to find out only when they arrived at the hotel that Fresh Trips had failed to book a
hotel room. To Travelzoos dismay, travelers were taking to social media and third party websites
and seeking to blame Travelzoo for this situation, even though this was exclusively and entirely
the fault of Defendants.
26.

As several affected travelers were voicing concerns on third-party websites and

social media, Fresh Trips continued to falsely reassure travelers that their concerns would be
satisfied, which made things worse. For example, Fresh Trips created a separate tab on its webpage publicly pronouncing:

27.

Despite what youve read on TripAdvisor and other social media OUR
COMPANY IS VERY REAL and theres no scam here!

Please be patient with us and we will ensure you are 100% taken care of
thank you!
Fresh Trips also issued a press release apologizing for the mistake that they had

made with the Royal Resorts, which is located https://fresh-trips.com/formal-apology-royalresorts/. Fresh Trips again falsely reassured customers that everyone who booked through them
will be taken care of and compensated if displaced or moved. According to Fresh Trips public
pronouncements: We also want to reassure all guests who booked through us that they will be
accommodated to their satisfaction. Defendant Fresh Trips apology is attached as Exhibit C.
28.

As it turned out, however, Fresh Trips was not taking care of the travelers or

compensating them for its mistake. Instead, while Fresh Trips was making such representations
publicly to perpetuate its scheme, it was Travelzoo who was working around the clock to respond
to concerned consumers who did not receive booking confirmations and who did not receive any
compensation from Fresh Trips or any of the other Defendants.
29.

On January 29, 2016, Fresh Trips sent an email to the travelers again

misrepresenting the facts, which email is attached as Exhibit D. Fresh Trips represented that all
7

refunds will be expedited and that travelers will be refunded by Wednesday, February 3 at the
very latest. This was not true; the refunds were not made as promised.
30.

To make matters worse, Fresh Trips attempted to place blame on Travelzoo for

Fresh Trips deception and incompetence, by directing travelers to contact Travelzoo for
alternative resort options. Because of Fresh Trips reckless behavior, Travelzoo was forced to
incur significant costs and suffered reputational damage. In addition, to avoid further damage and
potential claims, Travelzoo was forced to pay certain travelers for alternative accommodations,
which Fresh Trips failed to arrange as represented.
C.

Fresh Trips Ignores Travelzoos Requests To Remove Travelzoos Trademarks

From Its Website And Publications
31.

When Travelzoo learned that Fresh Trips was not honoring the Promotion in

accordance with the Agreement, Travelzoos legal department wrote a letter to Defendants. A
copy of the letter is attached hereto as Exhibit E. In addition to notifying Defendants of their
breach of contract and indemnification obligations, Travelzoos legal department also demanded
that Fresh Trips remove all use of Travelzoos registered trademark TRAVELZOO from any
and all of its websites and publications.
32.

TRAVELZOO is a famous trademark that was registered in 1999 with the United

States Patent and Trademark Office. Travelzoos registration number is 2422810 and can be found
on the United States Patent and Trademark website, http://www.uspto.gov/trademark.
33.

Fresh Trips included statements and misrepresentations on the home page of its

website, claiming that Travelzoo is a travel partner who loves to work with us. This was false.
That information has been recently removed, but screen shots of an example of Fresh Trips
trademark infringement is attached hereto as Exhibit F.

34.

Travelzoo made clear to Fresh Trips that it did not want any consumer to wrongly

believe that Fresh Trips was in any way endorsed or supported by Travelzoo, because it was not.
Travelzoo further notified Fresh Trips that its statement on its website that Travelzoo is a company
who loves to work with Fresh Trips was false. Travelzoo further made clear to Fresh Trips that
it did not have authorization to use Travelzoos trademark and that it had to cease and desist from
using the trademark TRAVELZOO on its websites and publications.
35.

Despite receiving the cease and desist letter, Defendant Fresh Trips only recently

complied with Travelzoos request. Defendant Fresh Trips infringed on Travelzoos trademark in
violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq., and the laws of the State of New York.
36.

Travelzoo has made a significant investment in promoting its travel services and

products under the trusted Travelzoo mark.

Fresh Trips deliberate unauthorized use of

Travelzoos trademark violated intellectual property laws and harmed Travelzoo.

D.

Additional Outstanding Monies Owed By San Diego Travel

37.

As alleged above, Travelzoo had previously worked with Defendant San Diego

Travel. On September 23, 2015, Defendant Timothy Wozniak, on behalf of San Diego Travel,
signed an agreement with Travelzoo for an email Newsflash promotion, which provided a
specific travel offer for hundreds of thousands of email recipients. The fee for such service was
$15,000. (See Newsflash Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit G).
38.

Travelzoo performed its duties under the Newsflash Agreement.

Thereafter,

Travelzoo sent an invoice, dated September 29, 2015, for the $15,000 payment under the
Newsflash Agreement. The payment was due on October 29, 2015. To date, San Diego Travel
has failed to make such payment.

CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract Against All Defendants)
39.

Travelzoo repeats and re-alleges each of the foregoing allegations as if fully set

forth herein.
40.

The Agreement entered into between Travelzoo and Defendants constitutes a

legally binding contract.

41.

Travelzoo fully performed the contract for the advertisement of the Promotion on

Cyber Monday. Defendants failed to perform and refused to perform its obligations under the
Agreement, including, but not limited to, the obligation to satisfy the terms of the Promotion and
to pay Travelzoo $12,000 for the advertisement.
42.

Defendants breached the terms and/or representations in the Agreement through

their actions as alleged above. In breach of the terms and/or representations in the Agreement,
Fresh Trips false statements were injurious to Travelzoos reputation and interest.
43.

Travelzoo has suffered and continues to suffer economic loss directly and

proximately caused by Fresh Trips acts alleged herein.

The acts of Fresh Trips injured

Travelzoos business reputation as evidenced by, among other things, the negative comments by
travelers on social media and the internet.
44.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants deliberate actions in failing to

satisfy the Promotion advertised on Travelzoo, Travelzoo has sustained damages and losses in the
hundreds of thousands of dollars (including, but not limited to, reputational damage and
consequential damages).

10

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Enforcement Of Contractual Indemnification Against All Defendants)
45.

Travelzoo repeats and re-alleges each of the foregoing allegations as if fully set

forth herein.
46.

The Agreement between Travelzoo and Defendants constitutes a legally binding

contract. Travelzoo fully performed the contract for the advertisement of the Promotion on Cyber
Monday.
47.

As a proximate result of Defendants breach of contract, Travelzoo has suffered

and continues to suffer economic loss directly and proximately caused by Defendants acts alleged
herein.
48.

Under Section 8 of the Agreement, Defendants are required to indemnify Travelzoo

against any and all expenses and losses of any kind (including reasonable attorneys fees and
costs) incurred by Travelzoo in connection with any claims, administrative proceedings or criminal
investigations of any kind arising out of publication of the advertisement .
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unjust Enrichment Against All Defendants)
49.

Travelzoo repeats and re-alleges each of the foregoing allegations as if fully set

forth herein.
50.

Defendants contracted for and requested Travelzoos services, knowing that

Travelzoo was entitled to compensation for its services.

51.

As set forth above, Defendants received money from customers for hotel bookings

that Defendants did not honor. Defendants engaged in a wrongful scheme to deprive Travelzoo of
its advertisement fee and, through Fresh Trips pattern of deception, Travelzoo was forced to spend
enormous capital and resources in an attempt to ameliorate the damage caused by Defendants.

11

52.

Under these circumstances, it would be unfair and would unjustly enrich

Defendants if they did not, at a minimum, compensate Travelzoo for the significant costs it
incurred as a result of Defendants wrongdoing.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Common Law Fraud Against Defendants
Fresh Trips, Fresh Jets and Timothy Wozniak)
53.

Travelzoo repeats and re-alleges each of the foregoing allegations as if fully set

forth herein.
54.

Defendants Fresh Trips, Fresh Jets and Timothy Wozniak made false

representations that Fresh Trips was able to satisfy the terms of the Promotion.
55.

Travelzoo, reasonably and justifiably relied upon the statements and

representations made by Fresh Trips, Fresh Jets and Timothy Wozniak, and publicized the
Promotion to Travelzoo members. Travelzoo would not have publicized the Promotion had it not
been for Defendants misrepresentations.
56.

At the time the statements and representations were made to Travelzoo, Fresh Trips,

Fresh Jets and Timothy Wozniak knew, or should have known, their statements and representations
were false, and intended to deceive Travelzoo to perpetuate their scheme.
57.

As a result of Fresh Trips, Fresh Jets and Timothy Wozniaks actions, Travelzoo

has sustained substantial damages to be determined at trial.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligent Misrepresentation Against Defendants
Fresh Trips, Fresh Jets and Timothy Wozniak)
58.

Travelzoo repeats and re-alleges each of the foregoing allegations as if fully set

forth herein.
59.

Fresh Trips, Fresh Jets and Timothy Wozniak made false representations of fact,

including, among other things, that Defendants were able to satisfy the terms of the Promotion,
12

and that they would book hotel accommodations on behalf of travelers who purchased the
Promotion. Fresh Trips, Fresh Jets and Timothy Wozniak falsely represented that Fresh Trips
would fully compensate travelers who did not receive the promised hotel bookings.
60.

If the misrepresentations of Fresh Trips, Fresh Jets and Timothy Wozniak were not

intentionally or recklessly made, then they were negligently made. Travelzoo relied on those
misrepresentations in publishing the Promotion on Travelzoos website.
61.

Fresh Trips, Fresh Jets and Timothy Wozniak failed to exercise reasonable care or

competence in making these representations and in ascertaining or failing to ascertain the truth or
falsity of their representations.
62.

As a result of Travelzoos reliance upon Fresh Trips, Fresh Jets and Timothy

Wozniaks misrepresentations, Travelzoo has suffered damages in an amount to be proved at trial.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Promissory Estoppel Against All Defendants)
63.

Travelzoo repeats and re-alleges each of the foregoing allegations as if fully set

forth herein.
64.

Timothy Wozniak executed the Agreement on behalf of San Diego Travel, for

Fresh Trips Promotion. Travelzoo reasonably relied to its detriment on the understanding that
Fresh Trips would book hotel accommodations on behalf of the consumers who purchased the
Promotion.
65.

Had Travelzoo known that Fresh Trips did not intend to comply with the

Promotion, Travelzoo would have never entered into the Agreement or published the Promotion
on its trusted publications.
66.

As a result of Travelzoos reliance upon Defendants misrepresentations, Travelzoo

has suffered damages in an amount to be proved at trial.

13

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Trademark Violation under Lanham Act and New York Law
Against Defendant Fresh Trips)
67.

Travelzoo repeats and re-alleges each of the foregoing allegations as if fully set

forth herein.
68.

Fresh Trips use of Travelzoos trademark constituted a false designation of origin,

a false or misleading description of fact, or a false or misleading description of fact which is likely
to cause confusion, mistake, or deception and constitutes an unfair competition under the Lanham
Act, Section 43(a), 15 U.S.C., 1125(a) and New York state common law.
69.

Fresh Trips used Travelzoos protected trademark with knowledge that Fresh Trips

did not have permission to use such trademark and infringed on Travelzoos trademark. Fresh
Trips use of the Travelzoo mark was intended to cause confusion and to deceive the public and
customers.
70.

Fresh Trips acts, as complained herein, have caused irreparable injury and damage

to Travelzoo and, unless restrained, will continue to do so.

71.

Travelzoo has no adequate remedy at law.

72.

Travelzoo has suffered and continues to suffer economic loss directly and

proximately caused by Fresh Trips acts alleged herein. The acts of Fresh Trips create an injury
to Travelzoos business reputation.
73.

Travelzoo is entitled to damages in amounts to be proven at trial, as well as

injunctive relief.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Injunction Against Defendant Fresh Trips)
74.

Travelzoo repeats and re-alleges each of the foregoing allegations as if fully set

forth herein.
14

75.

Fresh Trips used Travelzoos protected trademark with knowledge that Fresh Trips

did not have permission to use such trademark and infringed on Travelzoos trademark. Fresh
Trips use of the Travelzoo mark was intended to cause confusion and to deceive the public and
customers.
76.

Fresh Trips must be enjoined from using the trademark Travelzoo on its websites

or in any marketing materials or publications.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract Against Defendant San Diego Travel Group)
77.

Travelzoo repeats and re-alleges each of the foregoing allegations as if fully set

forth herein.
78.

The Newsflash Agreement entered into between Travelzoo and San Diego Travel

constitutes a legally binding contract. Travelzoo fully performed the contract for the email
advertising program.
79.

San Diego Travel has failed to perform its obligations under the Newsflash

Agreement by failing to pay the amount owed to Travelzoo. Accordingly, Defendant San Diego
Travel Group is in breach of the Newsflash Agreement.
80.

Travelzoo has suffered economic loss directly and proximately caused by San

Diegos failure to pay.

81.

Travelzoo has sustained damages in the amount of $15,000, plus any applicable

interest.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Account Stated Against Defendant San Diego Travel Group)
82.

Travelzoo repeats and re-alleges each of the foregoing allegations as if fully set

forth herein.

15

83.

Travelzoo and San Diego Travel Group entered into the Newsflash Agreement, a

legally binding contract between the parties. Travelzoo fully performed its obligations under the
Newsflash Agreement.
84.

Accordingly, Travelzoo sent to San Diego Travel Group an invoice for the amount

due under the Newsflash Agreement. San Diego Travel Group did not object to the invoice.
85.

To date, San Diego Travel Group has failed to pay the invoice for services rendered

by Travelzoo under the Newsflash Agreement.

86.

As a result of San Diego Travel Groups failure to pay, Travelzoo has sustained

damages in the amount of $15,000, plus any applicable interest.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Travelzoo respectfully requests the following relief:
A.

Damages in favor of Travelzoo against all Defendants, jointly and severally,

including, but not limited to, compensatory, consequential, reputational, punitive
and/or any other restitutionary damages, in an amount to be determined at trial but
not less than $600,000;

B.

Disgorgement of any and all gains, profits, and advantages realized by Defendants
unlawful and deceptive activities, in an amount to be determined at trial;

C.

Damages sustained by Travelzoo as a result of Defendant Fresh Trips unauthorized

use of its trademark, in an amount to be determined at trial;

D.

An injunction enjoining Defendant Fresh Trips as well as its officers, agents,

services, employees and all persons in active concert or participating with
Defendant Fresh Trips, from using the trademark Travelzoo or any other

16

colorable imitation

of o'Travelzoo" on their website or in any advertising,

promotion, or marketing materials;

E.

Damages against Defendant San Diego Travel Group, in the amount of $15,000;

F.

Pre-and post-judgment interest to the fullest extent assessable at law or in equity,

on all amount of damages;

G.

Plaintiff

H.

Such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper.

DATED:

s reasonable

attorneys' fees, costs and expenses; and

February 26,2016
New York, New York

HLTNG G.

TA, ESQ. PLLC

ung G. Ta, Esq.

JooYun Kim, Esq.
Natalia D. Williams, Esq.
250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, New York 10177
Tel: (646) 453-7288
Fax: (646) 453-7289
Email: hta@hgtlaw.com
jooyun@hgtlaw.com
nataha@hgtlaw.com
Attorneys for

T7

Plaintffi Travelzoo

Inc.