Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
JA Apparel v. Abboud
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
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
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
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.
A Lawyer's System for Active Reading
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.