Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Court Watch
Court Declines to Issue Preliminary Injunction Notwithstanding Franchise Agreement Properly Terminated
A federal district court in New Jersey found that a franchisor was likely to prevail on the merits and that continued use of the franchisor's name post-termination would create confusion in the mind of the public as to the source of the products sold, but declined to issue a preliminary injunction that would require the franchisee to turn over possession of the franchised locations to the franchisor. 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Sodhi, Bus. Fran. Guide (Wolterskluwer) '15,697 (D. NJ Feb. 9, 2016). There, the franchisee operated a number of 7-11 stores and was charged with having taken over $270,000 out of the business through manipulation of 7-11's loan.
Unfortunately, the franchisee's egregious conduct did not result in an appropriate injunctive remedy (although the court ordered the franchisee to post a bond, discussed infra ) due to the court's interpretation of the United States Supreme Court's decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391-94 (2006). There, the Supreme Court held irreparable harm could not automatically be presumed by reason of a finding of patent infringement. Subsequent federal decisions have split as to whether the presumption should apply in trademark cases. In the Sodhi case, the court held that the plaintiff must prove facts showing that it would suffer irreparable harm by the franchisee remaining in possession of the premises and using the 7-11 trademark, and this could not be presumed by the fact that the franchisee breached the contract, resulting in its loss of the franchise and termination of its trademark license. The franchisor attempted to prove some of this by references to customer complaints at one of the stores, some of which arose before the termination. The franchisor also argued, with supporting case law, that real property is presumed unique, which should result in a decree of specific performance or an injunction. The court dismissed this argument on the basis that eBay put an end to any presumptions.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
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.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.