Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Intellectual Property StrategistKickerFeaturesTopicsCommercial LawSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

JA Apparel v. Abboud

By Christopher P. Bussert
March 29, 2010

Cases involving family name disputes have historically presented challenges for courts, as they frequently require balancing competing interests of businesses and individuals. A particularly interesting permutation of such disputes involves well-known individuals who convey certain rights in their family name in a particular field to a third party and then later seek to re-enter the same field. A trio of recent decisions on this subject features the famous clothing designer, Joseph Abboud. JA Apparel Corp. v. Abboud, 591 F. Supp.2d 306 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (“Abboud I“); JA Apparel Corp. v. Abboud, 568 F.3d 390 (2d Cir. 2009); JA Apparel v. Abboud, 2010 WL 103399 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 12, 2010) (“Abboud II“).

At the heart of the dispute was the interpretation of a Purchase and Sale Agreement (“Agreement”) executed on June 16, 2000. In exchange for a substantial payment, Abboud agreed to “sell, convey, transfer, assign and deliver” to JA Apparel “all of [his] right, title and interest in and to ' [t]he names, trademarks, trade names, service marks, logos, insignias and designation identified on Schedule 1.1(a)(A),” which included Joseph Abboud, “and all trademark registrations and applications therefor, and goodwill related thereto.” Abboud I, 591 F. Supp.2d at 306. On July 13, 2000, the same parties entered into a Side Letter pursuant to which Abboud agreed to serve as “Chairman Emeritus” of JA Apparel and provide consulting services relating to the products sold under the foregoing marks. The Side Letter also included a two-year non-competition provision.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys Image

Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.

Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing Image

A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.