Eva's Bridal Ltd. v. Halanick Enterprises, Inc.
639 F.3d 788, 98 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1662, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9539 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trademark owner abandons their mark through 'naked licensing' if they fail to exercise reasonable control over the nature and quality of the goods or services offered by a licensee, as the function of a trademark is to ensure a consistent and predictable quality for consumers.
Facts:
- In 1966, Eva Sweis founded a bridal shop named 'Eva’s Bridal'.
- The business was later passed to Said and Nancy Ghusein, who operated a shop in Oak Lawn, a Chicago suburb.
- The Ghuseins sold a second shop in Orland Park to a relative, Nayef Ghusein.
- The sales agreement required Nayef Ghusein to pay an annual royalty of $75,000 for the right to use the 'Eva’s Bridal' name and marks.
- The license agreement did not give Said and Nancy Ghusein any power of supervision or control over how Nayef Ghusein conducted the Orland Park business.
- Nancy Ghusein admitted in a deposition that she and her husband never attempted to control any aspect of the Orland Park shop's operations.
- The license agreement expired in 2002, but Nayef Ghusein and his company continued to use the 'Eva's Bridal' name without paying the royalty.
Procedural Posture:
- Said Ghusein and Eva’s Bridal Ltd. filed suit against Nayef Ghusein and Halanick Enterprises in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging trademark infringement under the Lanham Act.
- The district court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiffs had abandoned the 'Eva’s Bridal' mark by engaging in naked licensing.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trademark owner abandon their mark through naked licensing when they permit a licensee to use the mark without retaining or exercising any contractual or actual control over the licensee's business operations, goods, or services, regardless of the owner's subjective belief in the licensee's high quality?
Opinions:
Majority - Easterbrook, Chief Judge.
Yes. A trademark owner abandons their mark when they engage in naked licensing by failing to exercise any control over a licensee's operations, as the core function of a trademark is to signify consistent, predictable quality to consumers. The court reasoned that 'quality' in trademark law does not mean 'high quality' but rather 'consistent quality,' which allows consumers to know what to expect from a brand. The plaintiffs, Said and Nancy Ghusein, retained no contractual authority and exercised no actual control over the appearance, operations, or inventory of the defendants' shop. This complete lack of supervision severs the connection between the mark and the owner, constituting the 'paradigm of a naked license' and resulting in abandonment of the mark. The licensor's personal belief that the licensee maintains high standards is irrelevant; what matters is the retention and exercise of control to ensure consistency.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the fundamental principle that trademark rights are contingent upon the owner's active control over the mark's use in commerce. It clarifies that the 'quality control' requirement is not about ensuring a premium product but about guaranteeing a consistent consumer experience, which is the essence of a trademark's value. The ruling serves as a stark warning to licensors that passive reliance on a licensee's reputation is insufficient; they must contractually reserve and actually exercise control to avoid abandonment. This case solidifies the doctrine that a trademark is not merely property to be licensed for a fee but a symbol of goodwill that the owner has a duty to actively manage and protect.
