Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bahstonsox]

State: MA

(Company Names changed for identity. The NFL is just used for ease of description)

NFL makes a claim against XYZ Co. for trademark infringement.  The situtuation starts with a cease and desist letter and then discussions between attorneys for compensation of the claimed infringing goods.  XYZ Co. is complient to reach a settlement but NFL's demands are unreasonable and no settlement can be reached to appease XYZ Co.  The matter is not discussed for almost a year. It seems to have died.

However, XYZ Co. finds evidence that the NFL Attorney is contacting suppliers of XYZ Co. informing them (The Suppliers)  that XYZ Co. is a known trademark infringer and that they should not sell NFL goods to XYZ Co.

The trademark infringement was questionable to begin with. The  NFL is obviously using their power to cut off the supply of resellable goods to XYZ Co.  Their business is selling NFL goods and this leads XYZ Co. to source second hand suppliers and pay a premium on goods they were once purchasing from companies at a discount that they had established relationships with. XY

Does XYZ Co. have any legal recourse against the NFL?
Can XYZ Co. claim that their reputation has been tarnished and the NFL has interfered in their business?
Is this legal business practice by the NFL?

To me this sounds like a case of Business Interference but I am not an attorney.  Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[JSonnabend]

I don't claim any expertise on Mass. tortious interference law, but generally speaking, if a third party is intentionally interfering with your relationship with a customer or supplier, and that third party has no right to do so, then the third party very well may be tortiously interfering with your business.

In a similar vein, if the third party is making defamatory statements about you, you may have a business libel cause of action available to you.

In all of this, you should be able to demonstrate (a) that the company is making certain statements about you to your customers/suppliers; and (b) that the statements are false and/or improperly interfering with your business.

- Jeff

[Isaac]

Establishing that the comments are false might well involve taking on the burden of arguing the trademark issues.

[bahstonsox]

Isaac- Good point about having to face the IP issue again if claiming interference.

Couple of points-  The trademark issue is closing in on 2 years. I believe the statute of limitation is 3 years on trademark issues. If we wait until the limitation has passed wouldn't we be in the clear to make our claim of interference..  

[Isaac]

Isaac- Good point about having to face the IP issue again if claiming interference.

Couple of points-  The trademark issue is closing in on 2 years. I believe the statute of limitation is 3 years on trademark issues. If we wait until the limitation has passed wouldn't we be in the clear to make our claim of interference..  

The trademark issue may or may not be important depending on exactly what your customers are being told.  

If the statute of limitations expires, that might prevent a counter claim from being effective, but it does not seem to me that the truth of whatever the NFL has said would change with the running out of the statute of limitations.  

[bahstonsox]

Can a company legally tell suppliers not to sell to you when no legal judgment has ever been rendered against you for the issue in question?

[Isaac]

"Can a company legally tell suppliers not to sell to you when no legal judgment has ever been rendered against you for the issue in question?"

Maybe.   A lot depends on the particulars.   Just as an example, if your relationship with your suppliers made them liable under a contributory or indirect infringement theory, Your suppliers could be sued without suing you.   The infringed party might elect to warn your suppliers of their own potential liability.

That does not leave you without legal recourse if they are wrong, but a judgment against you is not requried before taking action with your suppliers.

[bahstonsox]

Not sure if I was clear.

Our suppliers did not sell the infringing product.

Ex.. NFL is telling Reebok not to distribute NFL licensed t-shirts to us becuase they felt a product we had sold over a year ago was infringing on NFL.  

What I am asking is this legal business practice?