Litigation Over Ultra Music Festival's Trademark Abroad Proceeds to Trial in Miami
Following a Sept. 6 ruling by federal Judge Federico A. Moreno denying dual requests for summary judgement, litigation concerning the use of the Ultra brand in Croatia and Europe proceeded to trial in the Southern District of Florida on Monday. According to one attorney, the jury could reach a decision by Friday.
September 19, 2018 at 05:18 PM
4 minute read
A case being heard in federal court in Miami will decide the fate of the city's world-renowned Ultra Music Festival across the Atlantic Ocean.
Just as tickets were placed on sale for the forthcoming 21st edition of the Miami-born festival on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Federico A. Moreno presided over litigation between Worldwide Entertainment Group and Adria MM Productions, battling for the right to use the Ultra name for similar electronic music festivals in Europe and Croatia.
Read Judge Moreno's Order Denying the Parties' Motions For Summary Judgement:
As reported by Miami New Times, Adria, an event promotion company based in Croatia, filed suit in May 2017 against Worldwide Entertainment Group after the latter allegedly made unreasonable demands of the company and accused Adria of being in breach of contract.
Worldwide is a sublicensor of the Ultra trademark tasked with licensing out the Miami festival's brand to international production companies. It and Adria had a five-year agreement, beginning in November 2012, to throw Ultra-branded events in Croatia and Europe. However, before a new agreement could be drafted, Worldwide allegedly revoked Adria's Ultra license in March 2017, after the Croatian company did not respond within the timeline set by Worldwide to resolve the alleged breach.
After their license was revoked, Adria claimed it discovered that Worldwide had never actually registered the Ultra brand for use in Croatia and Europe as discussed in their 2012 agreement. The company subsequently filed suit against Ultra in federal court in Miami.
Additionally, Worldwide has been accused by Adria of cutting off its access to social media channels, company emails and other means of communication used both internally and with consumers.
According to the New Times report, Worldwide responded by filing a countersuit accusing Adria of breaching their 2012 agreement by organizing non-Ultra electronic events, while still owing the parent company thousands in fees.
Following the filing of their respective lawsuits in Miami, both Worldwide and Adria filed to register for the use of the Ultra trademark in Europe, with Worldwide filing in the European Union and Adria in Croatia, the organization's country of operation.
The case proceeded to trial on Monday following a Sept. 6 ruling by U.S. District Judge Federico A. Moreno denying simultaneous requests for summary judgement by both Worldwide and Adria. In his 31-page order, Moreno wrote that Worldwide failed to sufficiently demonstrate how Adria's use of the Ultra brand abroad would affect the parent company's ability to conduct commerce in the United States. Likewise, the judge held that further clarification was required concerning the facts and circumstances of the initial 2012 agreement between the two parties.
Worldwide's counsel Peter Francis Valori of Miami law firm Damian & Valori did not reply to requests for comment by deadline.
Javier A. Lopez, partner at Miami firm Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton and counsel to Adria, told the Daily Business Review that because it's undisputed that Ultra had not registered a trademark in Europe or Croatia, “the issue that seems to be litigated is whether or not the mark was well-known” and therefore offered broader protections under the law.
“We weren't sure whether or not Croatia law would apply or if US law may apply; the issue is can you sell what you don't own,” Lopez said. “We have affirmative claims and they have affirmative claims; it's the old everybody breached everything argument. Obviously Worldwide is claiming that we breached part of the contract and they're claiming we breached part of the contract … so a jury will decide who's right and who's wrong.”
Lopez added that “Judge Moreno's done a great job of moving the case along pretty quickly,” and he foresees the case being wrapped up in short order.
“The jury should have the case in their hands by Friday … so we'll probably get a decision on Friday.”
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllChicago Midsize Firm Will Combine With Miami Boutique To Form Antitrust Powerhouse
3 minute readAkerman Opens Charlotte Office With Focus on Renewable Energy, Data Center Practices
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome', DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
- 2Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 3When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250