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.”
Related stories: Litigation Over Ultra Music Festival's Trademark Abroad Proceeds to Trial in Miami
Technician Injured By Falling Set Sues Ultra Music Festival
Police Union Chief: More Miami Cops Less Private Security At Ultra
Ultra Music Festival Licensor Wins Appeal Against Co-Founder's Brother
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
© 2025 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
- 1Relaxing Penalties on Discovery Noncompliance Allows Criminal Cases to Get Decided on Merit
- 2Reviewing Judge Merchan's Unconditional Discharge
- 3With New Civil Jury Selection Rule, Litigants Should Carefully Weigh Waiver Risks
- 4Young Lawyers Become Old(er) Lawyers
- 5Caught In the In Between: A Legal Roadmap for the Sandwich Generation
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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