Parev Products Co. v. I. Rokeach & Sons, Inc.
124 F.2d 147, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 2447, 52 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 111 (1941)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In an exclusive licensing agreement, where the parties' intent is unclear regarding competition, a court may imply a negative covenant to prevent the licensee from engaging in conduct that would destroy the licensor's right to receive the fruits of the contract, but the scope of this covenant is limited by principles of equity and fairness to both parties.
Facts:
- In 1924, Parev Products Co., Inc. (Parev) granted I. Rokeach & Sons, Inc. (Rokeach) an exclusive 25-year license to use a secret formula for a Kosher cooking oil called 'Parev Schmaltz'.
- In exchange for the exclusive license, Rokeach agreed to pay Parev royalties on all sales of the product.
- The contract contained express negative covenants preventing Parev from competing, but no express covenant preventing Rokeach from selling a competing product.
- Rokeach renamed the product 'Nyafat' and successfully marketed it for approximately 15 years, paying substantial royalties to Parev.
- In 1940, citing increased market competition from products like Crisco and Spry, Rokeach began distributing a competing Kosher cooking oil called 'Kea' under its own label.
- Kea was made from cottonseed oil, unlike Nyafat which was made from coconut oil, and Rokeach did not pay royalties to Parev on Kea sales.
Procedural Posture:
- Parev Products Co., Inc. filed suit against I. Rokeach & Sons, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, seeking an injunction to stop the sale of Kea.
- The District Court dismissed the complaint on the merits, ruling that the parties did not intend for the contract to include a negative covenant against competition by Rokeach.
- Parev Products Co., Inc., as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second 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:
In an exclusive licensing agreement that lacks an express covenant against competition, should a court imply a negative covenant preventing the licensee from marketing a product that competes with the licensed product?
Opinions:
Majority - Clark, Circuit Judge
Yes, a court should imply a negative covenant, but its scope must be determined by equity rather than by an absolute prohibition on competition. The court reasoned that focusing on the parties' original 'intent' is often a fiction when dealing with circumstances, like new market competition, that were unforeseen when the contract was made. Instead, the court should seek to preserve the 'status created and developed by the parties.' A strict injunction forbidding all sales of the competing product (Kea) would be unfair to the licensee (Rokeach), who must be able to respond to market changes. Conversely, allowing the licensee complete freedom to compete could unfairly destroy the licensor's (Parev's) entire benefit from the contract. The most equitable solution is to permit the licensee to sell the competing product so long as it does not invade the market already established by the licensed product, protecting the licensor only from the loss of its existing market share to the licensee's new product.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its shift away from a rigid, intent-based analysis of contracts toward a more flexible, equity-based approach for implying covenants in long-term relational agreements. The court openly acknowledges the limitations of trying to divine the parties' intent regarding unforeseen future events and instead focuses on achieving a fair and equitable outcome that preserves the core of the original bargain for both parties. This 'middle ground' approach provides a framework for balancing a licensee's need to adapt to changing market conditions against a licensor's right to the benefits of their agreement, influencing how courts handle disputes arising from exclusive dealing and franchise contracts.
