Allegations have surfaced regarding misleading claims about the origins and leadership of a private membership club app, raising questions about business reputation and consumer trust in marketed credentials. On May 19, 2026, Daniel Houston filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Jan Cieslikiewicz, Frederick Ghartey, and Mosaic Group I Inc., alleging violations under Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act and New York common-law unfair competition.
According to court documents, Houston asserts that defendants made and disseminated "a false or materially misleading commercial provenance narrative concerning the Parlor Social Club app and membership product." The complaint states that defendants marketed their app as inheriting the original Parlor enterprise’s SoHo legacy, press coverage, operating history, founder lineage, and curatorial authority. However, Houston alleges that these materials misrepresented Cieslikiewicz as having held founder or operator status in the original Parlor enterprise when he was actually an investor through JANC Holdings LLC.
Houston identifies himself as a co-founder of the original Parlor enterprise—Parlor Club—which operated a brick-and-mortar members club in SoHo beginning around 2010 or 2011 until its closure in approximately 2017. He claims that Cieslikiewicz was not involved as a founder but invested in a subsidiary entity. The complaint highlights written acknowledgment from Ghartey stating that Cieslikiewicz “does not view himself as a co-founder of the original brick-and-mortar Parlor.”
The dispute centers on several published articles and promotional materials from June to August 2022 which allegedly presented Cieslikiewicz as a co-founder or operator of both the original club and its digital successor. Examples cited include an Arlo Hotel blog post where Ghartey is quoted: “In 2010 my current business partner, Jan Cieslikiewicz, and I, together with Daniel Houston...co-founded a brick and mortar members club in Soho.” Other placements named are TWELV magazine’s interview referring to both defendants as founders; Haute Living’s advertorial describing them as being “in the membership club business since 2011”; Modern Luxury’s article suggesting they started working on memberships with a SoHo location; The Manual’s statement about digitizing their social club; Elite Daily’s contributor content identifying both men as founders; and Fast Company’s branded content attributing co-founder status to Cieslikiewicz without clarifying his role.
Houston argues these statements are either literally false or misleading by implication because they conflate brand identity between entities established nearly a decade apart. He distinguishes between permissible references to brand continuity versus what he describes as "material alteration"—specifically projecting later-app founder status backward onto the legacy enterprise. The complaint further outlines how such representations allegedly deceived consumers regarding “operating pedigree” and impaired Houston's own professional credential as an authentic founder—a credential he uses actively in finance, fundraising, advisory work, partnerships, entrepreneurial projects, and executive searches within high-end hospitality sectors.
The filing also describes actions taken by defendants beyond passive media coverage: integrating challenged statements into owned marketing channels such as websites (parlor.social), app store listings identifying Mosaic Group Inc., LinkedIn profiles listing unqualified founder titles for Cieslikiewicz, reposting promotional articles on social media channels controlled by defendants, and using these narratives in outreach to potential partners or investors.
Houston details his efforts prior to litigation to seek correction: sending written pre-litigation demands on April 16 and April 27, 2026 identifying specific statements considered false and requesting remedial action. According to Houston's account—and correspondence from Ghartey acknowledging plaintiff's founding role—defendants have not caused corrections to be issued nor clarified distinctions between Cieslikiewicz’s involvement with different entities.
The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief clarifying historical roles; injunctive relief stopping continued use of disputed narratives; corrective advertising; actual damages; disgorgement of profits attributable to alleged false statements; and any other remedies deemed appropriate by the court. Jurisdiction is asserted based on federal question under trademark law statutes (Lanham Act), supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims due to related facts, diversity jurisdiction given citizenships involved (plaintiff residing in Virginia; individual defendants residing in Brooklyn; Mosaic Group I Inc. incorporated in Delaware but headquartered in Brooklyn), with controversy exceeding $75,000 exclusive of interest or costs.
No jury trial is demanded; instead Houston requests all issues be tried before a judge (bench trial). At time of filing (Case No. 1:26-cv-02972-PKC-JRC), Daniel Houston appears pro se (representing himself). No attorneys for defendants nor judge names are explicitly listed within this portion of court records.
Source: 126cv02972_Houston_v_Cieslikiewicz_Complaint_Eastern_District_New_York.pdf