Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Intellectual Property StrategistKickerFeaturesTopicsCommercial LawSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

JA Apparel v. Abboud

By Christopher P. Bussert

Cases involving family name disputes have historically presented challenges for courts, as they frequently require balancing competing interests of businesses and individuals. A particularly interesting permutation of such disputes involves well-known individuals who convey certain rights in their family name in a particular field to a third party and then later seek to re-enter the same field. A trio of recent decisions on this subject features the famous clothing designer, Joseph Abboud. JA Apparel Corp. v. Abboud, 591 F. Supp.2d 306 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (“Abboud I“); JA Apparel Corp. v. Abboud, 568 F.3d 390 (2d Cir. 2009); JA Apparel v. Abboud, 2010 WL 103399 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 12, 2010) (“Abboud II“).

At the heart of the dispute was the interpretation of a Purchase and Sale Agreement (“Agreement”) executed on June 16, 2000. In exchange for a substantial payment, Abboud agreed to “sell, convey, transfer, assign and deliver” to JA Apparel “all of [his] right, title and interest in and to ' [t]he names, trademarks, trade names, service marks, logos, insignias and designation identified on Schedule 1.1(a)(A),” which included Joseph Abboud, “and all trademark registrations and applications therefor, and goodwill related thereto.” Abboud I, 591 F. Supp.2d at 306. On July 13, 2000, the same parties entered into a Side Letter pursuant to which Abboud agreed to serve as “Chairman Emeritus” of JA Apparel and provide consulting services relating to the products sold under the foregoing marks. The Side Letter also included a two-year non-competition provision.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

Beach Boys Songs Written Decades Ago Triggered Current Quarrel With Lawyers Image

There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Transfer Tax Implications on Real Property Leases Image

The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.