Dear valued clients and supporters: Happy New Year. This month's newsletter will focus on: (1) The effect bankruptcy of a trademark licensor has on a licensee; (2) The limits on non-compete clauses; and (3) The emergence of "The Internet of Things" and its legal impact.
Businesses sometimes enter into licensing agreements to use a trademark belonging to someone else. One of the most essential circumstances to consider before expending any resources on a trademark license is what happens in the event that the owner of the trademark declares bankruptcy. For businesses that develop products, perform research, and make sales revolving around a trademark license, savvy planning in advance is essential for protecting their interests. Poor planning or a failure to do so can result in the license being revoked, even if paid for in advance, resulting in the potential failure of licensee's business. A more in-depth article on this issue is now available here on our website.
In New York, non-compete clauses must be necessary to protect a legitimate interest of an employer, and must be reasonable in scope, duration, and location. Non-compete clauses are generally disfavored as restraints on trade and will only be enforced if signed for adequate consideration - i.e. in exchange for something. In a recent commercial court case involving three former executives of a Suffolk County-based vitamin distributor, NBTY, the judge addressed the validity of a non-compete clause signed after the executives were already employed. Years after being hired, the executives signed a stock option agreement containing a clause prohibiting them from working for any competitor in North America, Europe, or China for one year. The executives all then resigned and began working for a competitor without exercising the stock options.
The court held that the non-compete clause was not supported by new consideration and therefore unenforceable because the executives had chosen resigning over exercising their options. By forfeiting their right to any benefit under the stock option agreement, they rendered the non-compete clause invalid. Additionally, the court found that the geographic scope was unreasonable, noting that such a global restriction was only generally appropriate when a business is sold. Finally, the court rejected the argument that the executives would inevitably misappropriate confidential information, requiring more than hypothetical speculation to form the basis of such a claim.
This case highlights how employers who wish to hold their employees to non-compete clauses must be careful in tailoring their restrictions not only so that they are reasonable and necessary, but also so that they are in exchange for adequate consideration.
The Internet of Things refers to the everyday objects people use - smart phones, smart watches, smart cars, and even smart homes - that are digitally interconnected and function through a computer network that transmits and analyzes high levels of data. These "things" can be typically controlled and/or accessed remotely, and the new digitized "ecosystem" of which they are a part allows for automation, constant monitoring, and instant access to seemingly endless information. Any single device can be composed of parts made by multiple manufacturers, require a local "gateway" through which it connects to a greater network and other devices, and function through a cloud computing platform. While consumers and businesses alike enjoy the increased functionality the Internet of Things provides, the ever-expanding network of devices, systems, subsystems, clouds, and people has created a whole universe of legal considerations.
For one, with such vast access to and exchanges of data, participants in the Internet of Things must take steps to protect the privacy of personally identifiable information. Additionally, other data, such as sensitive or secret information, and control over a computer network, must also be heavily protected, making cybersecurity paramount. Other potential sources of intense litigation will be over the ownership of the various data generated by the Internet of Things, the ownership of the underlying technology/processes on which it all functions, and as well as accusations of anti-trust violations. Finally, when things go wrong and devices malfunction, break, and/or injure a user, with all the potential parties involved, determining whom to hold liable will be a complicated matter. All of this inevitably will result in an increase of rules, laws, and regulations governing the Internet of Things as it develops, and any supplier, manufacturer, or participant should consult with an attorney about potential liabilities before injecting a product into this emerging ecosystem.
Disclaimer: Nothing on this website is or should be construed as legal advice. An attorney-client relationship does not exist with our firm unless a signed retainer agreement is executed, and we do not offer legal advice through this site or any of the content located on it. For legal advice for your particular circumstances, please contact us directly.