FFA & Pro Golf Case study

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 – o an official trademark agreement – which Is a contract under which the owner of a copyright (in this case Pro Golf), allows a licensee (here FAA) 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, FAA decided to sub-license the trademark to another Japanese company for the aim to making more money.Issues The fact that FAA decided to sub-license the trademark in order to make margin on loyalties incited Pro Golf to end the contract. The termination of the contract by Pro Golf incited FAA to sew them for breaching of contract. Was Pro Golf entitled to terminate the contract with FAA? Rules â€Å"Contracts that do not state a set length of time for termination are presumptively â€Å"at will† and may be terminated by either party at any time. † Court's decision Considering that the contract between Pro Golf and FAA does not mention any set length, they should be entitled to end the contract whenever they want to.Pro Golf re entitled to terminate the contract with FAA. Was Pro Golf entitled to royalties received for Teeth sales? During those 6 years , Pro Golf and Facilitation evolved. They came from no official 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 FAA got a new opportunity to increase its benefit through getting higher royalties by Sub-licensing the trademark to Teeth Was Pro Golf entitled to royalties received forTeeth sales? This is Just a trademark agreement, they are no agency relationship between companies. The company can use the trademark on golf soft goods in Japan freely. Application of Rules Because the two companies made a trademark agreement, FAA can use the trademark on golf soft goods in Japan freely and sub-license the contractual rights. No Agency relationship between Pro Golf and FAA was engaged but rather a written trademark agreement for FAA to use the First Flight trademark on golf soft goods. Courts in the U. S. E reluctant to impose restrictions on assigning of rights in real or personal property; FAA here has a contractual right to use the trademark on golf soft goods in Japan and can freely transfer, assign, or sub-license all or part of those contractual rights. Nothing in Fast trademark license contract with Pro Golf prohibited FAA from granting sub-licenses to others or required FAA to pass along to Pro Golf any royalties FAA might receive from such subsequences. Was Pro Golf entitled to reimbursement for its attempts to perfect trademark rights in Japan?When Pro Golf heard its attempt to register the tr ademark in Japan had not been completely successful and that third parties had obtained the right to use the trademark in Japan, they terminated the contract. The termination of the contract by Pro Golf incited FAA to sew them for breaching of contract. Pro Golf counterclaims and ask for reimbursement for damages equals to its expenditure. Was Pro Golf entitled to reimbursement for its attempts to perfect trademark rights in Japan? In Japan, the rules are different than in the United States.Third parties are able to et registration without use, in the contrary than in the USA where registration is basically synonym for legal protection of a trademark. As FAA is operating under Japanese rule, it should not be responsible to payback Pro Golf for its own failure. In Japan, unlike the U. S. , registration is the critical factor for legal protection of a trademark. Third parties were able to get registration without use, and Pro Golf apparently had to buy them off. Its failure to do so i s not the fault of FAA, nor should FAA be responsible to reimburse Pro Golf for its own failure.