Apr 13

Trademark License Agreement Goodwill

Shwartz argues that the Tribunal was wrong for several reasons. First, Khodr has repeatedly stated that he will not contest ownership of the brands outside the Carrollton restaurant. Second, the federal registration of shwartz trademarks provides a presumption of ownership and protection at the federal level. Third, the Landgericht ruling does not take into account the licence agreement. What is this overvalue that is so important in selling a brand? The goodwill of a brand is really at the heart of the brand`s value. If someone only sells the brand itself (words, logo, etc.), it is essentially worthless without “all the goodwill they had built, linked to the brand.” Greelon, Inc. of Cincinnati v. Greenlawn, Inc., 542 F. Supp 890, 895 (S.D. Ohio 1982). Ip-Draughts and colleagues have some abbreviated “up their sleeves” brand licensing formulas if the parties agree to add certain paragraphs to their technology licensing agreement, but are not willing to go into in-depth consideration of trademark licensing issues (e.g. B at the same level of detail as their agreement on technology licensing issues).

The use of abbreviated language is not without risk, but much better than the starting point of the parties, which can contain only one or two sentences in a subsidy clause. Khodr`s position is difficult to remember. In his briefing, he acknowledged the agreement not to use the marks in any location other than the Carrollton restaurant (i.e. the injunction) and argued that Shwartz`s alleged use of the marks “negligiblely” supported the property. During the hearing, however, Khodr argued that the “Bill of Sale” was “global” and that he had effectively ceded all camellia Grill trademark rights to it. Carol, you`re right that on a practical level, it`s hard to separate goodwill from the TM. With respect to contracts, the question is who is judged and who is therefore entitled to certain remedies under the TM law. This is a technical legal situation and it is therefore not surprising that this point is overlooked when the agreement is drawn up exclusively for trade priorities. It is worth asking whether the use proposed by the licensee requires a trademark license. If they simply want to indicate that [some] of the technology incorporated in their product is being used under license by [the University of East Wessex], this objective observation would not require a licence. It is not requested, at least under U.S.

law, to say a license (including, of course, service mark) that “this product contains the software of the University of East Wessex licensed as part of its Tech4TotsSM program” as long as the etc. service mark is recognized on that behalf. The Court`s decision leaves unanswered the potential problem, such as the refusal of a trademark licence agreement by a debtor`s licensee, which relieves it of the obligation to exercise quality control or control the infringement market, results in a bare licence that undermines the value of the mark.