Federal Jury Rules Against Ultra Music Festival in European Trademark Dispute
The festival was locked in litigation with Croatian company Adria MM Productions over the right to use the Ultra brand for similar events in Europe.
September 26, 2018 at 03:09 PM
5 minute read
A Miami jury has ruled in favor of a Croatia-based production company in their trademark dispute with the titan of concerts, Ultra Music Festival.
A verdict reached in the Southern District of Florida on Friday found that Worldwide Entertainment, an arm of Ultra Miami responsible for licensing out the festival's trademark to production companies abroad, tortiously interfered with Adria MM Production's business relationships. In addition to being awarded $866,000 in damages for the claim, the jury also ruled that Worldwide Entertainment breached its contract with Adria.
Read the final judgment against Ultra Miami:
The legal troubles between the two entities began last year when Adria filed a complaint against Worldwide for making allegedly unreasonable demands of the company as well as accusing it of being in breach of contract. Adria's complaint charged that after the two companies failed to renegotiate a 2012 five-year contract giving Adria rights to throw Ultra-branded events in Europe and Croatia, Worldwide sabotaged the smaller production company's communication channels both internally and with customers. Adria's company emails and social media pages were allegedly affected.
Adria's lawsuit also alleged that although Worldwide accused it of breaching contract, Ultra's parent company had never actually registered the trademark for use in Europe and Croatia.
Shortly thereafter Worldwide filed a counter-complaint alleging that Adria had engaged in trademark infringement, was unjustly enriched through its use of the Ultra brand and owed hundreds of thousands in licensing fees.
With regards to the latter charge, the jury also found that Adria had indeed breached its contract with Worldwide, and owed $366,211 in damages.
According to Adria's attorney and Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton partner Javier A. Lopez, the company conceded that it owed the sum named to Ultra Miami.
“That number is actually the last year's licensing fee. That's something that we openly admitted we wouldn't pay,” Lopez told the Daily Business Review, citing the “undisputed” fact that Ultra had not registered a trademark for Ultra Europe when Worldwide initially licensed the brand to Adria.
“Ultra Miami sold us a bill of goods they didn't own. We paid millions of dollars for this mark [and] anybody could have used it,” Lopez added. “How can you possibly infringe on a trademark that Ultra doesn't own?”
The award to Worldwide is offset by the aforementioned $866,000 awarded to Adria for Worldwide's tortious interference and respective breach of contract. Additionally, besides the charge that Adria had failed to pay a licensing fee, the jury sided with the Croatian company in the eight other charges filed against it in Worldwide's counter-complaint.
Read the final judgment in the counter-claims filed by Ultra Miami against Adria:
“We're obviously ecstatic with the verdict, and the jury understood that you can't sell what you don't own,” Lopez said of Friday's verdict. “Ultra Miami has probably done this with licensees around the world, selling them a mark they don't own.”
Lopez said Adria is “basically bankrupt,” despite the victory, due to what he calls Ultra's “strong-arm tactics.” With their legal matters concluded in Miami, the two parties are now taking one another to court in Croatia to resolve who will ultimately receive the rights to throw events bearing the Ultra brand in Croatia and Europe at large. After filing their corresponding lawsuits, both Adria and Worldwide rushed to register the Ultra trademark for use in Europe.
Worldwide's attorney Peter Francis Valori, managing partner at Miami law firm Damian & Valori, did not reply to requests for comment by deadline. Lopez could not definitively confirm as to whether he would be assisting Adria in the next installment of their legal saga with Ultra. However, he felt confident advising other global licensees of the Ultra trademark to look into who actually does — or doesn't — own the brand in their respective part of the world.
“When Ultra enters into contracts with a licensee, they better make sure that they're selling them a mark that they own. Because if not they're in breach and they're going to be in trouble,” Lopez said. “My advice to the licensees around the world is to make sure that the trademarks that you bought and are paying millions of dollars for… make sure Ultra owns them. If not, hold Ultra accountable.”
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 AllMuhammad Ali's Daughter Accused of Ignoring South Florida Judge
Judge Sides with Overseas Buyers in $12.9M Miami Beach Real Estate Dispute
4 minute readHomebuilder Hit With Multiple Suits in Florida State Courts Alleging Construction Defects
DraftKings Faces $65M Lawsuit by National Football League Players Association
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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