Hard Rock Hotel Answer & Counterclaims

8/8/2019 Hard Rock Hotel Answer & Counterclaims

1/34

23299369

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK----------------------------------------------------------- X

HARD ROCK CAFINTERNATIONAL (USA), INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

HARD ROCK HOTEL HOLDINGS, LLC,HARD ROCK HOTEL, INC., HRHH IP, LLC,MORGANS HOTEL GROUP CO., MORGANSHOTEL GROUP MANAGEMENT, LLC,DLJMB HRH VOTECO LLC, TURNERBROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., BRADLACHMAN PRODUCTIONS, INC. and GENCOENTERTAINMENT, INC.,

Defendants.

:::::::::::

::::::

Case No. 10 CV 7244

ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS OFDEFENDANTS HARD ROCK HOTELHOLDINGS, LLC, HARD ROCK HOTEL,INC. AND HRHH IP, LLC

----------------------------------------------------------- X

Defendants Hard Rock Hotel Holdings, LLC (Hard Rock Hotel Holdings), Hard

Rock Hotel, Inc. and HRHH IP, LLC (HRHH IP) (the Hard Rock Defendants)hereby submit this Answer and Counterclaims in response to the complaint of Hard Rock

Caf International (USA) Inc. (the Caf).

Preliminary Statement

1. The Hard Rock Defendants have done nothing wrong and, in fact, are

victims of systematic legal and business harassment by the Caf, which todays

countersuit seeks to remedy. The Hard Rock Defendants enjoy an exclusive, perpetual

and royalty-free right to use the Hard Rock family of marks for hotel-casinos and

casinos west of the Mississippi and in certain international locations. These rights are

Case 1:10-cv-07244-WHP Document 25 Filed 11/12/10 Page 1 of 34


2/34

2

clearly spelled out in a 1996 license agreement, which the Caf is unhappy with but

legally bound by. Under that license, the Hard Rock Defendants operate the popular

Hard Rock Hotel and Casino Las Vegas; have developed Hard Rock Hotel-Casinos in

Tulsa and Albuquerque, through tribal sublicensees; and are actively pursuing other

hotel-casino and casino development opportunities in the territories where they enjoy

exclusive rights. Per the license agreement, none of the revenue from these ventures goes

to the Caf or ever will.

2. The Caf has brought the present lawsuit a meritless grab bag of claimsfor breach of license, trademark infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition

in an attempt to terminate or rewrite the 1996 license agreement. The Caf complains

about a range of alleged trademark abuses that in many cases it has long known about,

tolerated or even approved. Most notably, the Caf claims to be shocked and disturbed

by the popular reality television show Rehab: Party at the Hard Rock Hotel, filmed at

the Hard Rock Hotel and Casino Las Vegas despite the fact that this show and the

lively behavior it portrays have already been on the air for two years; depicts an event

similar to the Detox party held at one of the Cafs properties; and has brought

enormous positive publicity to the Hard Rock brand. Likewise, the Caf purports to be

upset about the Tulsa and Albuquerque ventures despite having offered public praise

about both ventures. The meritless and untimely nature of the Cafs allegations confirms

that this lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt to escape the disadvantageous 1996

license agreement.



3/34

3

3. Frustrated at being contractually excluded from a lucrative business in a

large territory, the Caf, in addition to filing the Complaint, has also resorted to improper

business tactics. The Caf has actively pursued its own projects in the Hard Rock

Defendants exclusive territories in direct violation of the letter and spirit of the license

agreement. The Cafe has interfered with the Hard Rock Defendants development

projects, including by making untrue and overreaching public statements to deter

potential partners from doing business with the Hard Rock Defendants. This misconduct

by the Caf violates the license agreement and the law, and it must stop.

Answer

The Hard Rock Defendants answer as follows the Complaint filed by the Caf.

Any allegation not specifically admitted herein is denied.

1. Paragraph 1 consists of legal conclusions to which no response is required.

To the extent a response may be required, deny, except admit that certain of the Hard

Rock Defendants operate or have authorized others to operate certain hotel-casinos in

parts of the western half of the United States, including the Hard Rock Hotel and Casino

in Las Vegas, Nevada, and that Defendant HRHH IP is a licensee of the Caf.

2. Deny.

3. Paragraph 3 consists of legal conclusions to which no response is required.

To the extent a response may be required, deny.

4. Deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations.



4/34

4

5. Admit, except deny that the zip code associated with Hard Rock Hotel

Holdings address is 89109. Aver that the correct zip code is 89169.

6. Admit, except deny that the zip code associated with Hard Rock Hotel,

Inc.s address is 89109. The correct zip code is 89169.

7. Admit.

8. Aver that they are not required to respond to the allegations because the

allegations are directed to another defendant.

9. Aver that they are not required to respond to the allegations because theallegations are directed to another defendant.


allegations are directed to another defendant.


allegations are directed to another defendant. To the extent that a response may be

required, deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations.




allegations.





5/34

5


allegations.

14. Paragraph 14 consists of legal conclusions to which no response is

required. To the extent a response may be required, deny.




required. To the extent a response may be required, deny, except admit that New York isthe principal place of business of HRHH IP and that New York is the contractually

designated forum for the resolution of claims under the license agreement.


truth of the allegations, except admit that the original Hard Rock Caf was co-founded by

Peter Morton and Isaac Tigrett in 1971.











6/34

6






truth of the allegations, except refer to Hard Rock Hotel Holdings 10-K for the fiscal

year ended December 31, 2009 for its contents.

25. Deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to thetruth of the allegations.






truth of the allegations, except admit that the Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas

opened in 1995, that a copy of the License Agreement is attached to the Complaint as

Exhibit 3 and refer to the License Agreement for its contents.

29. Deny having information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations, except admit the allegations contained in the second sentence.

30. Admit.

31. Deny and refer to the License Agreement for its contents.




7/34

7








40. Deny and refer to the License Agreement for its contents.41. Deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations, except admit that a television program entitled Rehab: Party at

the Hard Rock Hotel began airing on the truTV cable channel in or about November

2008.


truth of the allegations, except admit that the first two seasons of Rehab: Party at the

Hard Rock Hotel consisted of eighteen episodes that originally aired between November

2008 and November 2009.


truth of the allegations, except admit that a third season of Rehab: Party at the Hard

Rock Hotel began airing on September 7, 2010 on truTV.

44. Deny, except admit that Rehab is a reality television program

concerning pool parties held on Sundays at the Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in Las

Vegas.



8/34

8

45. Deny the allegations contained in the first sentence, except admit that

Morgans Hotel Group Co. and DLJMB HRH VoteCo LLC are two members of Hard

Rock Hotel Holdings. Hard Rock Defendants aver that they are not required to respond

to the allegations contained in the second and third sentences because the allegations are

directed to other defendants.


required. To the extent a response may be required, deny the allegations pertaining to the

Hard Rock Defendants and deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form abelief as to the truth of the remaining allegations.

47. This paragraph is the subject of Hard Rock Defendants planned partial

motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, and accordingly will

not be answered at this time.












9/34

9

51. This paragraph is the subject of Hard Rock Hotel Defendants planned

partial motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, and accordingly

will not be answered at this time.


required. To the extent a response may be required, Hard Rock Hotel Holdings and

HRHH IP deny the allegations. Hard Rock Hotel, Inc. avers that it is not required to

respond to the allegations contained in Paragraph 52 because the allegations are directed

to other defendants; to the extent that a response may be required, Hard Rock Hotel, Inc.denies having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations.



HRHH IP deny. Hard Rock Hotel, Inc. avers that it is not required to respond to the

allegations contained in Paragraph 53 because the allegations are directed to other

defendants; to the extent that a response may be required, Hard Rock Hotel, Inc. denies

having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations.






10/34

10









allegations.



Hard Rock Defendants, and deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations.



Hard Rock Defendants and deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a




60. Deny the allegations pertaining to the Hard Rock Defendants, except

admit that HRH Tower and HRH Tower Spa Villas are among the facilities currently



11/34

11

at the Las Vegas property bearing the acronym HRH. Deny having knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations.


admit that the advertising and promotional materials attached to the Complaint as Exhibit

4 were disseminated by Hard Rock Defendants. Deny having knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations.

62. Deny the allegations pertaining to the Hard Rock Defendants, and deny

having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of theremaining allegations.

63. Deny and refer to the registrations and applications for their contents.





to other defendants; to the extent that a response may be required, Hard Rock Hotel, Inc.

denies having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations.








12/34

12


allegations.






denies having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of theallegations.







allegations.








13/34

13


allegations.






required. To the extent a response may be required, deny the allegations pertaining to theHard Rock Defendants and deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a





admit that HRHH IP and Hard Rock Hotel Holdings sublicensed the Hard Rock Hotel

and Hard Rock Casino trademarks to Cherokee Nation Enterprises, LLC, which operates

a Hard Rock Hotel-Casino in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Deny having knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations.






14/34

14








76. Paragraph 76 consists of legal conclusions to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response may be required, deny the allegations pertaining to the













allegations.



15/34


16/34

16







allegations.

83. Paragraph 83 consists of legal conclusions to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response may be required, deny the allegations pertaining to the










admit that HRHH IP and Hard Rock Hotel Holdings sublicensed the Hard Rock Hotel

and Hard Rock Casino trademarks to the Pueblo of Isleta, a federally recognized Indian

tribe, which operates a Hard Rock Hotel-Casino in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Deny



17/34

17

having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

remaining allegations.






not be answered at this time.89. Paragraph 89 consists of legal conclusions to which no response is






Hard Rock Defendants, except admit that Exhibit 8 depicts a mark used at the

Albuquerque property. Deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth of the remaining allegations.







18/34

18


admit that the Albuquerque property is operated by the Pueblo of Isleta Indian tribe,

which has a sponsorship arrangement with the Pavilion. Deny having knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations.




respond to the allegations contained in Paragraph 93 because the allegations are directedto other defendants; to the extent that a response may be required, Hard Rock Hotel, Inc.


allegations.







allegations.







19/34

19



allegations.






allegations.







allegations.







20/34

20








admit that Hard Rock Hotel, Inc. has registered several Internet domain names in thecourse of its business operations, and deny having knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations.


admit that cherokeehardrockhotel.com, hrhpokeronline.com and hardrockroyalty.com are

Internet domain names currently registered to Hard Rock Hotel, Inc. and that Hard Rock

Hotel, Inc. is the registrant for each of the Internet domain names listed in Exhibit 9.

Deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

remaining allegations.





104. Repeat and reallege the responses to the foregoing paragraphs.



21/34

21

105. Deny, except admit that the Caf as a successor is a party to the License

Agreement with HRHH IP as a successor.

106. Deny.

107. Deny.

108. Deny.


110. Deny.

111. Deny.112. Repeat and reallege the responses to the foregoing paragraphs.

113. Deny.

114. Deny.

115. Deny.


117. Deny.

118. Deny.

119. Deny.


121. Deny.

122. Deny.

123. Deny.


125. Deny.



22/34

22

126. Deny.

127. Deny.


129. Deny.

130. Deny.

131. Deny.


133. Deny.134. Deny.

135. Deny.

Answer To Prayer For Relief

To the extent any response is required to Plaintiffs Prayer for Relief, the Hard

Rock Defendants deny each and every allegation contained therein that is directed to

them. Hard Rock Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested

or to any other relief.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

First Affirmative Defense

The Complaint and each count thereof fails to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted.



23/34

23

Second Affirmative Defense

Hard Rock Defendants have at all times acted in good faith and without any intent

to trade on any goodwill of Plaintiff or any third party.

Third Affirmative Defense

The claims contained in the Complaint are barred in whole or in part by the

doctrines of waiver, equitable estoppel, acquiescence, unclean hands and laches.

Fourth Affirmative Defense

The claims contained in the Complaint are barred in whole or in part because

Plaintiff fails or has failed to mitigate, minimize and/or avoid any purported damages.

Fifth Affirmative Defense

Plaintiff has suffered no damages.

Sixth Affirmative Defense

The alleged acts of the Hard Rock Defendants did not cause any confusion or

mistake, nor likely confusion or mistake, and did not dilute or tarnish Plaintiffs alleged

trademarks.



24/34

24

Counterclaims

Nature Of The Action

1. The Cafs misconduct has given rise to counterclaims for breach of

contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and tortious interference

with business relations. The Hard Rock Defendants are complying with their obligations,

and pursuing their legitimate economic opportunities, pursuant to the License Agreement.

Yet, the Caf is systematically trying to deprive the Hard Rock Defendants of the benefits

of the License Agreement, not only through meritless litigation, but throughimpermissible efforts to develop business ventures in the Hard Rock Defendants

exclusive territory, and false and overreaching statements designed to deter potential

partners from doing business with the Hard Rock Defendants.

2. The Cafs wrongful efforts are designed to misappropriate for the Caf

the benefits of the good name, goodwill and stellar reputation of the Hard Rock

Defendants, and to convey to potential business partners the false impression that the

Hard Rock Defendants do not, on their own, have the right to sublicense the Hard Rock

marks for use in development projects. The Hard Rock Defendants have lived up to their

end of the bargain under the parties license agreement; now the Caf must live up to its

end.

3. Unless the Cafs misconduct is stopped, the Hard Rock Defendants

goodwill, standing and reputation among key industry players (including hotel-casino

owners and operators) will be further damaged. Accordingly, the Hard Rock Defendants

bring this action seeking permanent injunctive relief to prevent the Caf from causing any



25/34

25

more harm through its unlawful conduct, as well as damages to compensate the Hard

Rock Defendants for the harm the Caf already has caused.

Jurisdiction And Venue

4. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. 1332. The amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.

5. Personal jurisdiction over the Caf is appropriate under New York Civil

Practice Law and Rules 302. On information and belief, the Caf owns, operates and/or

franchises several Hard Rock Caf locations in New York State. Moreover, New York isthe contractually designated forum for the resolution of claims.

Facts

The 1996 License Agreement

6. Under the License Agreement, HRHH IP enjoys the exclusive, royalty-

free and perpetual right to use and exploit the HARD ROCK HOTEL and HARD ROCK

CASINO trademarks in connection with hotel-casino operations and casino operations in

certain specified territories - in relevant part, [t]he State of Illinois and all states and

possessions of the United States which are located west of the Mississippi River.

Certain international locations, including Australia, Brazil, Israel, Venezuela and

Vancouver, British Columbia, are also included in the licensed territories. These licensed

territories are known collectively as the Morton Territories, after Peter Morton, the

original licensee to whom HRHH IP is a successor.

7. The License Agreement also provides that HRHH IP has the right to

sublicense or franchise any or all of the rights and licenses granted under the License



26/34

26

Agreement. The License Agreement states that [a]ny sublicense or franchise granted

hereunder shall contain provisions whereby the sublicensee or franchisee agrees to

assume, observe and perform all of the obligations of [HRHH IP] and be bound by all of

the restrictions under [the License] Agreement and [HRHH IP] shall provide a copy of

such sublicense or franchise to [the Caf].

8. Nothing in the License Agreement requires HRHH IP to seek approval

from the Caf when developing a hotel-casino or when sublicensing trademarks. The

License Agreement also does not provide for any veto right by the Caf over proposeddevelopments or sublicense agreements by the Hard Rock Defendants. Nothing in the

License Agreement provides for any sharing of revenues with the Caf.

9. In addition, the License Agreement allows the Caf to develop, maintain

and update a World Wide Web page for the Hard Rock Caf Restaurants, and other Hard

Rock Facilities [which is defined to include Hard Rock Hotel/Casinos, Hard Rock

Casinos and Hard Rock Caf restaurants] as they may developexcept that [HRHH IP]

may develop, maintain and update a Web page for the Hard Rock Hotel/Casinos or

Casinos in the Morton Territories (emphasis added). The License Agreement goes on

to provide that [i]n connection with their respective Web sites, both parties agree to

include links to the other partys Web pages.

Business Operations Of the Hard Rock Defendants

10. Under the License Agreement, Hard Rock Hotel Holdings operates the

Las Vegas Hard Rock Hotel and Casino, a premier destination entertainment resort with a

rock music theme. Since it began operations in 1995, the Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in



27/34

27

Las Vegas has developed a strong following among its target customer base (i.e.

consumers), who seek a vibrant, energetic entertainment and gaming experience with the

services and amenities associated with a boutique luxury resort hotel. The Hard Rock

Defendants have explored and continue to explore opportunities to develop other casinos

and hotel-casinos in the Morton Territories.

11. On or about November 11, 2008, certain of the Hard Rock Defendants

executed a sublicense agreement with Cherokee Nation Enterprises, LLC (CNE). The

Hard Rock Defendants agreed to license certain intellectual property, including theHARD ROCK HOTEL and HARD ROCK CASINO trademarks, to CNE in connection

with a Hard Rock Hotel-Casino that CNE operates in Catoosa, Oklahoma. CNEs

Catoosa, Oklahoma hotel/casino reopened as the renovated and newly branded Hard

Rock Hotel and Casino Tulsa in the summer of 2009.

12. On or about October 13, 2009, certain of the Hard Rock Defendants

executed a sublicense agreement with the Pueblo of Isleta Indian tribe (Isleta), pursuant

to which the Hard Rock Defendants agreed to license certain intellectual property,

including the HARD ROCK HOTEL and HARD ROCK CASINO trademarks, to the

Isleta in connection with a Hard Rock Hotel-Casino that the Isleta operates in

Albuquerque, New Mexico. The renovated and newly branded Hard Rock Hotel and

Casino Albuquerque opened in the summer of 2010 under the operation of the Isleta.

13. In accordance with their rights, the Hard Rock Defendants constantly

pursue other hotel-casino and casino development opportunities within their licensed



28/34

28

territories, including through frequent conversations with Native American tribes and

other potential partners in the development or operation of hotel-casinos.

The Cafs Wrongful Business Dealings

14. In breach of its obligations under the License Agreement, the Caf has

pursued a campaign of engaging in hotel-casino business development in the Hard Rock

Defendants exclusive territories and interfering with the Hard Rock Defendants

sublicensees and potential sublicensees. The Caf also has breached its duty of good faith

and fair dealing, including its obligation not to take actions that frustrate or limit the HardRock Defendants exercise and enjoyment of their rights under the License Agreement.

15. For example, on information and belief, as certain of the Hard Rock

Defendants were developing their Tulsa project, the Caf engaged in discussions with

potential partners in Tulsa, within the Morton Territories, to open or brand a competing

hotel/casino or similar venture that would have been associated with the Hard Rock

trademarks.

16. As a further example, on information and belief, the Caf also sought to

interfere with the Hard Rock Defendants development efforts in New Mexico by seeking

to engage one or more potential licensees to open a Hard Rock Caf and/or a Hard Rock

Live! music venue in conjunction with the potential licensees hotel-casino and to place

associated signage promoting the venues in and around the property. This too would

have been within the Morton Territories. The Cafs plans to place Hard Rock Cafs

and/or Hard Rock Live! venues in hotel-casinos reflected a scheme to effectively brand

these hotel-casinos as Hard Rock Hotel-Casinos in violation of the exclusive license



29/34

29

granted to Hard Rock Defendants to use the Hard Rock marks for hotel-casinos in the

Morton Territories.

17. In addition to the aforementioned efforts, on information and belief, the

Caf has also contacted numerous other hotel-casino operators in the Morton Territories

to propose opening Hard Rock Cafs or other Hard Rock-branded venues at or near their

properties, and otherwise explored such potential development projects, in violation of

the letter and spirit of the License Agreement.

18. On information and belief, the Caf also has communicated directly withthe actual and/or potential business partners of the Hard Rock Defendants to suggest that

these partners not do business with the Hard Rock Defendants and that they do business

with the Caf instead, to falsely assert that the Hard Rock Defendants lack legal authority

over the Hard Rock marks, and/or to otherwise obstruct the Hard Rock Defendants

legitimate, authorized and exclusive business development efforts in the Morton

Territories.

19. The Cafs efforts to develop projects in the Morton Territories are in

violation of Article 2(a) of the License Agreement, reflect a concerted strategy to deprive

the Hard Rock Defendants of the benefits of the license in violation of the Cafs

obligation of good faith and fair dealing, and interfere with the Hard Rock Defendants

own development efforts.

20. In addition to its efforts to develop projects in the Morton Territories, the

Caf has violated its obligations under the License Agreement with respect to Worldwide

Web Site development and maintenance. On or about October 19, 2009, just days after



30/34

30

certain of the Hard Rock Defendants and the Isleta executed a sublicense agreement for

the Hard Rock Hotel-Casino in Albuquerque, the Caf registered for itself the Internet

domain name hardrockcasinoalbuquerque.com. The registration of this Internet

domain name by the Caf violates the License Agreement, which grants HRHH IP, not

the Caf, the right to develop, maintain and update a Web page for the Hard Rock

Hotel/Casinos or Casinos in the Morton Territories.

21. The Caf has also failed to include the Hard Rock Hotel-Casinos in Tulsa

and Albuquerque on their pull-down lists of all Hard Rock Hotel/Casinos contained ontwo websites it maintains, hardrock.com, available at http://www.hardrock.com/, and

hardrockhotels.com, available at http://www.hardrockhotels.com, in violation of its

obligations under the License Agreement. The Cafs failure to include these properties

on the prominent listings on its websites further conveys to potential business partners the

false impression that the Hard Rock Defendants did not, on their own, have the right to

sublicense the Hard Rock marks for use in the Tulsa and Albuquerque development

projects.

The Cafs False Statements Regarding Its Ability to BlockThe Hard Rock Defendants Sublicense Deals

22. Jim Allen, a senior executive of the Caf, recently gave an interview to

Global Gaming Business Magazine, a leading monthly gaming trade magazine that

focuses on the international casino gaming industry, in which he made untrue and

overreaching statements designed to deter potential partners from doing business with the

Hard Rock Defendants. The audio of this interview is available at



31/34

31

http://ggbnews.com/issue/vol-8-no-35-september-13-2010/article/global-gaming-

business-podcast-jim-allen-chairman-hard-rock-international. In the interview, Mr. Allen

falsely stated that the Hard Rock Defendants cannot do a transaction without [the

Cafs] approval. So anything in that particular territory, they still need to submit back

to [the Caf] for approval to eventually pursue utilizing the Hard Rock brand

(emphasis added).

23. Additionally, in an article entitled Hard Sell published by Global

Gaming Business Magazine in its September 2010 edition based on this interview, Mr.Allen was quoted as saying that the Hard Rock Defendants cannot do a transaction in

[the Cafs] territory without submitting it to [the Caf] for approval. A copy of this

article is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

24. On information and belief, false statements of the kind made to Global

Gaming Business Magazine have also been made by Mr. Allen or other agents of the

Caf in multiple other contexts, including to potential development partners or

sublicensees of the Hard Rock Defendants.

25. These statements are utterly untrue and have no basis whatsoever in the

License Agreement. These false statements were directed to and were heard by potential

sublicensees, lenders and other business partners of the Hard Rock Defendants, and were

damaging to the Hard Rock Defendants relationship with and reputation among these

persons and entities.



32/34

32

FIRST COUNTERCLAIM

Breach of Contract

26. The Hard Rock Defendants repeat and reallege each and every allegation

set forth above.

27. The Caf has intentionally and materially breached the License Agreement

as described herein, thereby causing damage.

28. As a result of the Cafs intentional and material breaches, the Hard Rock

Defendants are entitled to entry of permanent injunctive relief against future breaches bythe Caf or third parties in privity with the Caf, an award of damages in an amount to be

determined at trial, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and such other and further

relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

SECOND COUNTERCLAIM

Breach of Contract Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing


set forth above.

30. The Caf has intentionally and materially breached the covenant of good

faith and fair dealing implied in the License Agreement by destroying or injuring the

Hard Rock Defendants right to receive the fruits of the License Agreement as described

herein.

31. As a result of the Cafs intentional and material breaches, the Hard Rock

Defendants are entitled to entry of permanent injunctive relief against future breaches by

the Caf or third parties in privity with the Caf, an award of damages in an amount to be



33/34

33

determined at trial, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and such other and further

relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

THIRD COUNTERCLAIM

Tortious Interference with Business Relations


set forth above.

33. The Caf has engaged in behavior that has significantly interfered and

continues to interfere with business relationships that the Hard Rock Defendants possessor are attempting to develop with sublicensees and prospective sublicensees in the

Morton Territories.

34. Such acts are dishonest, unfair and improper means of competition, and

are intentionally aimed at disrupting the Hard Rock Defendants business relationships.

35. The Hard Rock Defendants have suffered damages as a result of the

Cafs intentional interference with its business relationships and prospective

relationships.

36. As a result of the Cafs intentional and wrongful interference, the Hard

Rock Defendants are entitled to an award of damages in an amount to be determined at

trial, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and such other and further relief as this

Court may deem just and proper.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Hard Rock Defendants respectfully pray that this Court enter

judgment on their behalf and against the Caf and award as follows:



34/34

(a) A declaration that the Caf has breached the License Agreement, and the

covenant of good faith and fair dealing contained within it;

(b) An Order enjoining the Caf from engaging in any further acts in

contravention of the License Agreement or interfering with the Hard Rock Defendants

actual or prospective business relationships;

(c) Compensatory damages, in an amount to be determined at trial;

(d) Punitive damages, in an amount to be determined at trial;

(e) The Hard Rock Defendants costs and disbursements in this action; and(f) Such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: New York, New YorkNovember 12, 2010

DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP

By: /s/ Jeremy Feigelson____________Bruce P. [email protected]

Jeremy Feigelson [email protected] M. Calderon Rizzo [email protected]

919 Third AvenueNew York, New York 10022

(212) 909-6000 Attorneys for Hard Rock Hotel Holdings, LLC, Hard Rock Hotel, Inc., and HRHH IP, LLC


Documents

Hard Rock Hotel Answer & Counterclaims