settlement agreement Archives

settlement agreement

Back to the Future: Prior Third-Party Settlement Doesn’t Impact Future Trademark Licensees

by Gaylon C. Hollis | Sep 7, 2023 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that under certain circumstances a trademark licensee can bring a claim against a third party for unfair competition under the Lanham Act even if the licensing agreement does not expressly authorize it to do so. Overhead Door Company of Kansas City v. OGD Equipment Company, LLC, Case No. 22-10985 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 22, 2023) (Branch, Brasher, JJ.; Winsor, Dist. J., sitting by designation).

This appeal involved three parties: D.H. Pace Company, Overhead Door Corporation and Overhead Garage Door (OGD). All three companies are involved in selling and servicing garage doors. Pace is a licensee of Overhead. Under its license, Pace is permitted to advertise and promote the trade name OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY. OGD is a competitor of Overhead and Pace. Prior to the current appeal, Overhead and OGD had been involved in litigation involving OGD’s alleged trademark infringement and unfair trade practices, which resulted in a settlement. As a part of the settlement, OGD and Overhead could not bring suits against each other. However, the settlement terms were not expressly binding on any current or future licensees of Overhead.

In the current litigation, Pace filed suit against OGD for unfair competition in violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, deceptive trade practices and various state trademark infringement violations. Pace alleged that OGD was leading consumers to believe that it was the same company as, or was affiliated with, Overhead (Pace’s licensor). In response, OGD moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. The district court ruled that the licensing agreement between Pace and Overhead was a contractual bar to relief because the agreement did not affirmatively give Pace the right to sue. The district court also ruled that as a non-exclusive licensee, Pace lacked standing to bring its suit. The district court held that because Pace’s trademark rights were derived from a licensing agreement with Overhead, by discharging rights in the prior settlement with OGD, Overhead also discharged Pace’s right to sue.

Through a de novo review, the Eleventh Circuit disagreed with the district court’s grant of summary judgment against Pace. As the district court recognized, under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, parties other than the owner of the mark can bring suit, but here the district court barred Pace’s claims based on the licensing agreement, Pace’s status as a non-exclusive licensee and the settlement agreement between OGD and Overhead. In reversing, the Eleventh Circuit held that none of these reasons was sufficient to bar Pace’s claims.

According to the Eleventh Circuit, the licensing agreement did not bar Pace from suing since there were no contractual term imposing a bar. While a licensee’s right to sue can be restricted, there was nothing in the licensing agreement at issue that limited Pace’s right to sue. The license agreement did not address trademark enforcement or either party’s ability to sue.

The Eleventh Circuit explained that the district court misread the Eleventh Circuit’s 2019 decision in Kroma Makeup v. Boldface [...]

Continue Reading

Disgorgement of Profits Appropriate Remedy for Breach of Contract, Trademark Infringement

by Kathleen Lynch | Aug 24, 2023 | Trademarks

In a trademark infringement and breach of contract case involving real estate companies with a shared name, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the trademark owner, including almost $43 million in profit disgorgement. Dewberry Engineers v. Dewberry Group, Case Nos. 22-1622; -1845 (4th Cir. Aug. 9, 2023) (Gregory, Thacker, JJ.) (Quattlebaum, J., dissenting).

Dewberry Engineers and Dewberry Group (formerly Dewberry Capital) operate in the same states, and both provide commercial real estate services. Dewberry Engineers started in the mid-1950s as a civil engineering and surveying firm in northern Virginia. Over time, its business expanded to include real estate development services such as architecture and site development. Dewberry Group similarly provides real estate development services through its affiliates, including the Dewberry Hotel in Charleston, South Carolina.

In 2006, Dewberry Group sent Dewberry Engineers a cease-and-desist letter, asserting that Dewberry Group had “senior common law rights” to use “Dewberry” in real estate. In response, Dewberry Engineers sued Dewberry Group for infringing its federally registered DEWBERRY trademark. That litigation ended in 2007 when the parties entered a confidential settlement agreement (CSA). Among other things, the CSA stated that Dewberry Group:

Would not challenge Dewberry Engineers’ trademark registrations
Could use its “Dewberry Capital” name except in enumerated geographical areas where it instead must use “DCC”
Would use no logo other than its “column” logo.

In 2017, Dewberry Group rebranded and attempted to register DEWBERRY GROUP and other marks, which the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) repeatedly rejected.

In 2020, Dewberry Engineers filed suit claiming breach of contract and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and Virginia common law. The district court granted summary judgment to Dewberry Engineers on the contract claim, finding that Dewberry Group had violated the unambiguous CSA by changing its logo, among other offenses. The district court also granted summary judgment to Dewberry Engineers on its trademark infringement claim, finding that Dewberry Engineers’ mark was not only valid, it was incontestable since it had been in continuous use for more than five years. The district court also found that the likelihood-of-confusion factors favored infringement. The district court entered a permanent injunction against Dewberry Group’s use of “Dewberry” and granted Dewberry Engineers its attorneys’ fees and profit disgorgement. Because the court believed the tax information Dewberry Group provided did not show the true “economic reality” of the close relationship between Dewberry Group and its affiliates, the disgorgement calculation also included some of Dewberry Group’s affiliated companies’ profits. Dewberry Group appealed, challenging the summary judgment grant, the permanent injunction and the monetary awards.

The Fourth Circuit began by noting that there was “uncontroverted evidence” that Dewberry Group used the DEWBERRY trademark, used a logo other than its column logo and failed to use “DCC” in restricted areas, all in breach of the undisputedly valid CSA. The Court therefore affirmed the district court’s finding that Dewberry Group breached the CSA.

The Fourth Circuit next addressed the trademark infringement claim. The Court rejected [...]

Continue Reading

Quack, Waddle and Duck: Order That Grants Injunctive Relief Is an Injunction

by Kavya Rallabhandi | Jun 15, 2023 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded a district court ruling, finding that the district court failed to properly apply the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) in granting injunctive relief. Wudi Industrial (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v. Wong et al., Case Nos. 22-1495; -1662 (4th Cir. June 5, 2023) (Gregory, King, JJ.) (Rushing, J., dissenting). The dissent argued that the district court simply entered a permissible order enforcing a settlement agreement between the parties.

The FRCP outlines the necessary criteria and steps for courts to grant injunctive relief. FRCP 52(a)(2) requires courts to state the findings and conclusions that support their actions. FRCP 65(d) requires courts to state the reasons why the injunction was issued, state the injunction’s terms specifically or describe the restrained/required act(s) in detail. Per the Supreme Court’s Ebay test, a party seeking injunctive relief must demonstrate the following:

It has suffered an irreparable injury.
Remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury.
Considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted.
The public interest would not be disserved by an injunction.

Wudi Industrial competes with Wai L. Wong and his business entity GT Omega Racing (collectively, GTOR) in marketing video gaming chairs and other products. GTOR challenged Wudi’s GTRACING trademark registration in a cancellation proceeding at the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board, alleging that the mark encroached on GTOR’s earlier use of GT OMEGA RACING. The Board ruled in favor of GTOR, and Wudi initiated a first appeal at the district court. The parties subsequently entered into a concurrent-use agreement that assigned to Wudi the right to use the GTRACING word mark in all global markets except within a European carve-out of 53 named countries in exchange for a $4.5 million payment to GTOR. Under the agreement, Wudi was barred from purchasing ad words from search engines and shopping sites or using any social media platforms to promote GTRACING in the European carve-out countries.

In May 2022, GTOR filed a motion for enforcement in the district court, alleging breach because some of Wudi’s marketing and promotional content in the European carve-out contained the GTRACING mark. The district court granted GTOR’s motion and issued a first order. Under threat of contempt for noncompliance, Wudi was ordered to cease impermissible conduct and take down all posts accessible in the European carve-out containing GTRACING within seven days. In June 2022, the district court issued a second order stating that the first order was a grant of specific performance, not a preliminary injunction. Wudi appealed both orders.

The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s first and second orders because of procedural errors amounting to abuses of discretion, despite the dissent’s argument that the orders merely enforced the parties’ agreement. The Court concluded that the first order constituted a preliminary injunction, later made permanent by the second order, because “if it walks like a duck, quacks like a [...]

Continue Reading

Precision Is Paramount: Court Enforces Terms of Email Agreement in Settlement

by Paul Devinsky | Feb 17, 2022 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court order enforcing one party’s version of a settlement agreement, finding that version unsupported by the record. The Court found that the other party’s version accurately reflected the parties’ understanding. PlasmaCam, Inc. v. CNCElectronics, LLC, Case No. 21-1689 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 3, 2022) (Dyk, Reyna, JJ.) (Newman, J., dissenting).

PlasmaCam and CNCElectronics (CNC) both operate in the precision cutting industry. PlasmaCam is the exclusive licensee of a patent related to precision cutting equipment, and it sued CNC for allegedly infringing the patent. In December 2019, the parties notified the district court that they had settled the case but disputes arose in the process of drafting a formal agreement, particularly with respect to the scope of “covered products” under the settlement license and the scope of a “mutual release.” Although the parties eventually advised the district court that they had reached a complete agreement, disputes remained as to the scope of covered products. On PlasmaCam’s motion, the district court ordered CNC to execute PlasmaCam’s version of the agreement, execute a promissory note contemplated by the agreement and pay any unpaid settlement funds. CNC appealed.

The Federal Circuit first evaluated whether it had jurisdiction. The Court found that it had jurisdiction because the district court’s order was an injunction (since it ordered CNC to specifically perform an action, i.e., execute an agreement and promissory note, and not merely to pay money) and a final judgment (because it resolved all substantial issues between the parties).

The Federal Circuit next considered the negotiations between the parties with regards to the settlement agreement. As to the scope of covered products, the Court found that the parties had reached agreement regarding a definition of “covered products” in an email, even though the scope of the mutual release was still being negotiated. However, the Court found that the agreed definition of “covered products” was different from the one PlasmaCam provided to the Court and the one which the Court had subsequently ordered CNC to adopt. The Court also recognized the parties’ subsequent agreement regarding the mutual release, which both parties had confirmed to the district court. Because the district court had clearly erred by adopting a definition of “covered products” different from the one that was agreed by the parties, the Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the parties’ actual agreement.

Judge Newman dissented. In her view, no agreement had been reached at all, as the parties had apparently continued to disagree as to the scope of key terms.

Practice Note: In this case, the parties’ statements to the district court that they had reached an agreement played a large role in establishing that an agreement had been formed even though there was no single signed document that reflected the agreement and, in some views, there continued to be disputes about important terms. Litigants should be careful not to represent to a court that an agreement has been [...]

Continue Reading

School’s Out: Trademark Settlement Agreement Enforceable

by Paul Devinsky | Apr 29, 2021 | Trademarks

Addressing issues relating to jurisdiction, contract enforceability and trademarks, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit concluded that two schools that used similar names had a valid and enforceable settlement agreement obligating one school to pay for the other to change its name. The Commonwealth School, Inc. v. Commonwealth Academy Holdings LLC, Case No. 20-1112 (1st Cir. Apr. 14, 2021) (Selya, J.)

It came to the attention of a Boston private school, The Commonwealth School (the School), that a more recently founded private school in Springfield, Massachusetts, was operating under a similar name, Commonwealth Academy (the Academy). In 2016, the School brought suit against the Academy under the federal Lanham Act, claiming that the School had a trademark on its “Commonwealth School” name, and that “Commonwealth Academy” infringed on that trademark. The parties entered into settlement mediation, and agreed that the School would pay the Academy $25,000 and in return the Academy would change its name to “Springfield Commonwealth Academy.”

The district court issued an order that a settlement was reached. Three years passed, and the Academy took steps to change its name in promotional materials and on its website. But the School would not pay the Academy because it claimed the Academy still had the “Commonwealth Academy” name appearing prominently on its students’ basketball jerseys. At a hearing to resolve the dispute, the district court reversed its earlier order: the parties had not actually reached a settlement agreement because there had been no “meeting of the minds” for contract formation, despite the other steps the Academy took to fulfill the agreement. The district court dismissed the case because neither party showed cause to reopen the case. The Academy appealed, arguing that the district court erred in refusing to enforce the settlement agreement.

The First Circuit addressed three main issues on appeal: (1) whether there was appellate jurisdiction to hear the appeal, (2) whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the initial settlement agreement dispute, and (3) on the merits, whether the settlement agreement was a validly formed contract.

The First Circuit concluded it had jurisdiction to review the district court’s dismissal order. Generally, under the final judgment rule, only final decisions are appealable. But here, the order at issue was merely interlocutory, meaning it was issued during the course of litigation. The Academy claimed the order was in fact reviewable because the order resulted in the case’s dismissal, and thus it should fall under the merger doctrine exception, where interlocutory orders merge into final judgments. The Court considered this in the context of the School’s failure to prosecute, and whether the order actually fell under an exception to the exception – i.e., where a dismissal is based on a failure to prosecute, it does not fall under the merger doctrine. In its analysis, the Court considered the policy considerations underlying the merger doctrine: to preserve integrity of the final judgment rule by preventing any reward for bad faith tactics. Here, the School, as the [...]

Continue Reading