JA Apparel Corp. v. Abboud
2010 WL 103399, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2151, 682 F. Supp. 2d 294 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a contract for the sale of assets, including trademarks and names, is ambiguous, courts will look to extrinsic evidence to determine intent. An individual who has sold their name as a trademark may still make descriptive, good-faith use of their personal name in a new venture, but this use is limited to prevent consumer confusion and cannot function as a mark to trade on the sold goodwill.
Facts:
- Fashion designer Joseph Abboud entered into negotiations with JA Apparel Corp. to sell his brand.
- Throughout negotiations, written communications between the parties referred only to the sale of 'Joseph Abboud trademarks.'
- JA Apparel's counsel drafted the final Purchase and Sale Agreement and, for the first time, included the word 'names' in a list of assets being sold alongside 'trademarks, trade names, service marks.'
- The parties never discussed or negotiated the meaning or inclusion of the standalone term 'names.'
- On June 16, 2000, Abboud and JA Apparel executed the Agreement for $65.5 million, transferring assets including 'names, trademarks...' and the goodwill associated with them.
- A related Side Letter established a five-year consulting period for Abboud, followed by a two-year non-compete period, which expired in July 2007.
- After the non-compete period, Abboud began developing a new clothing line called 'jaz.'
- Abboud created several mock-up advertisements for his 'jaz' line that used his personal name in taglines such as 'a new composition by designer Joseph Abboud.'
Procedural Posture:
- JA Apparel Corp. sued Joseph Abboud and his companies in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for breach of contract and trademark infringement.
- Abboud asserted counterclaims against JA Apparel.
- The parties consented to a bench trial before a U.S. Magistrate Judge.
- The trial court initially found the contract unambiguous, ruled for JA Apparel, issued a permanent injunction, and dismissed Abboud's counterclaims.
- Abboud, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Second Circuit held that the contract was ambiguous, vacated the district court's judgment, and remanded the case for the trial court to consider extrinsic evidence and re-evaluate the trademark claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under an ambiguous contract for the sale of trademarks and 'names,' did designer Joseph Abboud sell the exclusive right to all commercial uses of his personal name, and if not, does his proposed use of his name in advertising for a new clothing line constitute permissible trademark fair use?
Opinions:
Majority - Theodore H. Katz, United States Magistrate Judge
No, Abboud did not sell the exclusive right to all commercial uses of his personal name; he only sold the rights to his name as a trademark. Yes, some of his proposed advertising constitutes permissible fair use, but only if conducted in a descriptive, non-confusing manner and with a disclaimer. The court first addressed the contract claim, holding that since the Second Circuit deemed the term 'names' ambiguous, extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent was controlling. All pre-agreement correspondence focused exclusively on the sale of 'trademarks,' and the term 'names' was added unilaterally by JA Apparel's counsel without discussion. The court reasoned that the absence of any negotiation over the sale of Abboud's personal name for all commercial purposes compelled the conclusion that only the trademark rights were sold. The court then analyzed the trademark infringement claim under the fair use defense. It applied a three-part test: whether the use was (1) descriptive, (2) other than as a mark, and (3) in good faith. The court found that ads using Abboud's name in small text as part of a descriptive sentence were permissible, but ads using his name in a large, stylized font similar to the sold trademark were not, as this functioned 'as a mark' to attract attention and trade on sold goodwill. To ensure good faith and prevent consumer confusion, even permissible uses require a clear disclaimer stating Abboud's lack of affiliation with JA Apparel.
Analysis:
This decision provides a critical framework for disputes involving the sale of a business founded on a personal name. It affirms that the sale of a 'trademark' does not, by default, extinguish an individual's right to use their own name in a descriptive commercial capacity, highlighting the need for extremely precise language in asset purchase agreements. The ruling establishes that the trademark fair use defense for a seller of a personal brand is narrowly construed and highly fact-specific, focusing on the physical presentation (font, size, placement) of the name to prevent it from functioning as a source-identifier. By requiring a disclaimer even for permissible uses, the court sets a precedent that prioritizes the prevention of consumer confusion and protects the value of the goodwill purchased by the buyer.
