Quiksilver Inc. v. GMT Corporation
Published: Mar. 2, 2004 | Result Date: Jan. 15, 2004 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: SACV020148 Verdict – $1,018,860
Judge
Court
USDC Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Michael G. Yoder
(O'Melveny & Myers )
Defendant
Jeffrey Kravitz
(Alternative Resolution Centers )
Experts
Plaintiff
Jim Ellis
(technical)
Facts
The plaintiff/cross-defendant Quiksilver Inc. and the defendant/cross-complainant GMT Corporation entered into a licensing agreement in 1992 allowing GMT the exclusive right to manufacture watches with Quiksilver trademarks, including Quiksilver and Roxy, in the United States. Although Quiksilver renewed the license agreement in 1995 and again in 2000, the parties' relationship always had tensions, including Quiksilver's concerns over the quality of the watches and GMT's concerns over Quiksilver's cooperation in marketing and design issues. In early 2002, Quiksilver sued in Santa Ana Federal Court for a declaration that the license agreement could not be further extended beyond the end of the term in 2005. Quiksilver later amended its action to declare the license agreement immediately terminated. GMT then filed a counterclaim against Quiksilver for breach of contract of the license agreement. GMT also filed a separate action against Quiksilver in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Quiksilver prevailed in the forum selection dispute, and the New York GMT action was subsequently transferred to California and consolidated with Quiksilver's initial suit. GMT also sought a preliminary injunction forcing the parties to continue their relationship under the license agreement which the court denied. The court also denied GMT's motion for leave to amend its counterclaim to add a count charging that Quiksilver's termination of the license agreement violated GMT's rights under the New Jersey Franchise Law.
Result
After about four hours of deliberation, the jury concluded that GMT had breached the license agreement and that Quiksilver had properly terminated the agreement. Quiksilver requested and the jury awarded $1 in damages for this breach. The jury further contended that GMT had breached the license agreement by refusing to sell Quiksilver the watch inventory. Quiksilver requested and the jury awarded $1 in damages for this breach. The jury further held that Quiksilver was entitled to recover accrued and unpaid royalties in the sum of $1,018,860. The jury found that Quiksilver had not otherwise breached the license agreement or the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Deliberation
four hours
Length
six days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390