Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Leasing Hotline
No Misappropriation of Building Name
A tenant did not misappropriate the name of the landlord's building where the landlord could not show that the tenant publicly renamed the landlord's building without its consent. Avon Products v. Solow, Index No. 18068/73, Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, June 28, 2007.
In an action commenced by the tenant, the landlord counterclaimed, alleging misappropriation by the tenant of the name of the landlord's building. The court held that the landlord was unable to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Avon (the tenant) used but did not pay for the right to name the landlord's building formally and publicly. It was not sufficient to show that the tenant identified the name of the landlord's building as the 'Avon Building' to persons outside of the Avon organization. Moreover, even if the landlord had proved that Avon misappropriated the name of the building, damages, i.e., the value of the naming rights Avon 'used but did not pay for,' were not made out, especially in light of the fact that there was no signage involved.
No Misappropriation of Building Name
A tenant did not misappropriate the name of the landlord's building where the landlord could not show that the tenant publicly renamed the landlord's building without its consent. Avon Products v. Solow, Index No. 18068/73, Supreme Court of the State of
In an action commenced by the tenant, the landlord counterclaimed, alleging misappropriation by the tenant of the name of the landlord's building. The court held that the landlord was unable to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Avon (the tenant) used but did not pay for the right to name the landlord's building formally and publicly. It was not sufficient to show that the tenant identified the name of the landlord's building as the 'Avon Building' to persons outside of the Avon organization. Moreover, even if the landlord had proved that Avon misappropriated the name of the building, damages, i.e., the value of the naming rights Avon 'used but did not pay for,' were not made out, especially in light of the fact that there was no signage involved.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
CoStar Wins Injunction for Breach-of-Contract Damages In CRE Database Access Lawsuit
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.