FFA & Pro Golf Case study
Case study
The case involved 3 problematics :
1. Was Pro Golf entitled to terminate the contract with FFA?
2. Was Pro Golf entitled to royalties received for Teito sales?
3. Was Pro Golf entitled to reimbursement for its attempts to perfect trademark rights in Japan?
Was Pro Golf entitled to terminate the contract with FFA?
Facts
During those 6 years , Pro Golf and FFA'situation evolved. They came from no official agency agreement – legally, an agent is someone who has authority to create legal relations between a person known as a 'principal' (in this case Pro Golf) and others – to an official trademark agreement – which is a contract under which the owner of a copyright (in this case Pro Golf), allows a licensee (here FFA) to use, make, or sell copies of the original brand.
This changes make us understand the strong link between the companies and their willing to increase their cooperation.
However, FFA decided to sub-license the trademark to another Japanese company for the aim to making more money.
Issues
The fact that FFA decided to sub-license the trademark in order to make margin on royalties incited Pro Golf to end the contract.
The termination of the contract by Pro Golf incited FFA to sew them for breaching of contract.
Was Pro Golf entitled to terminate the contract with FFA?
Rules
“Contracts that do not state a set length of time for termination are presumptively “at will” and may be terminated by either party at any time.”
Court’s decision
Considering that the contract between Pro Golf and FFA does not mention any set length, they should be entitled to end the contract whenever they want to. Pro Golf are entitled to terminate the contract with FFA.
Was Pro Golf entitled to royalties received for Teito sales?
Facts
During those 6 years , Pro Golf and FFA'situation evolved. They came from no official agency agreement – legally, an agent is someone who has authority to create legal relations between a
The case involved 3 problematics :
1. Was Pro Golf entitled to terminate the contract with FFA?
2. Was Pro Golf entitled to royalties received for Teito sales?
3. Was Pro Golf entitled to reimbursement for its attempts to perfect trademark rights in Japan?
Was Pro Golf entitled to terminate the contract with FFA?
Facts
During those 6 years , Pro Golf and FFA'situation evolved. They came from no official agency agreement – legally, an agent is someone who has authority to create legal relations between a person known as a 'principal' (in this case Pro Golf) and others – to an official trademark agreement – which is a contract under which the owner of a copyright (in this case Pro Golf), allows a licensee (here FFA) to use, make, or sell copies of the original brand.
This changes make us understand the strong link between the companies and their willing to increase their cooperation.
However, FFA decided to sub-license the trademark to another Japanese company for the aim to making more money.
Issues
The fact that FFA decided to sub-license the trademark in order to make margin on royalties incited Pro Golf to end the contract.
The termination of the contract by Pro Golf incited FFA to sew them for breaching of contract.
Was Pro Golf entitled to terminate the contract with FFA?
Rules
“Contracts that do not state a set length of time for termination are presumptively “at will” and may be terminated by either party at any time.”
Court’s decision
Considering that the contract between Pro Golf and FFA does not mention any set length, they should be entitled to end the contract whenever they want to. Pro Golf are entitled to terminate the contract with FFA.
Was Pro Golf entitled to royalties received for Teito sales?
Facts
During those 6 years , Pro Golf and FFA'situation evolved. They came from no official agency agreement – legally, an agent is someone who has authority to create legal relations between a