Parlux Fragrances, LLC v. S. Carter Enters., LLC
Decision Date | 24 February 2022 |
Docket Number | Appeal No. 14387-14387A,Index No. 650403/16,Case Nos. 2020-04970, 2020-04972 |
Parties | PARLUX FRAGRANCES, LLC, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents, v. S. CARTER ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al., Defendants-Respondents-Appellants. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., New York (Anthony J. Viola, Andre K. Cizmarik, Kara M. Cormier and Kaitlyn A. Crowe of counsel), for appellants-respondents.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, New York (Ellyde R. Thompson, Alex Spiro, Cory D. Struble and Allison McGuire of counsel), for respondents-appellants.
Barbara R. Kapnick, J.P., Anil C. Singh, Martin Shulman, Bahaati E. Pitt, John R. Higgitt, JJ.
This appeal and cross appeal arise from the parties’ dispute relating to the development and promotion of a fragrance line involving defendant Carter, the Grammy-winning entertainment mogul otherwise known as Jay-Z.
On April 18, 2012, defendants entered into a license agreement with nonparty Artistic Brands Development LLC (Artistic Brands) for the development and promotion of the fragrance line and related products. The license agreement granted nonparty Artistic Brands the exclusive right to use the trademark Jay-Z. The trademark relates to Carter and is held by S. Carter Enterprises, LLC (SCE). Carter, the sole member and manager of SCE, signed the license agreement on behalf of SCE. Additionally, Carter signed the license agreement in his personal capacity, but only with respect to sections 2C, 2D, and 11E. Carter's execution of those three aspects of the license agreement in his personal capacity reflected his personal involvement in the development and promotion of the fragrances that would be associated with his considerable professional identity and brand.
The meaning and effect of several articles of the license agreement are central to the issues disputed on appeal.
Sections A and C of article 12 specify various statements, reports, and plans that Artistic Brands (and its sublicensee) were required to deliver to defendants.
Article 15 of the license agreement addressed defaults, identifying those conditions and occurrences that constituted "events of default" (including plaintiffs’ failure to pay defendants any sum due under the license agreement, and plaintiffs’ "failure to deliver full and accurate reports pursuant to any of the provisions of th[e] [license agreement] by the prescribed due date therefor") for which the other party had to serve on the defaulting party a notice of default.
Section 18F contains the license agreement's no waiver provision. It states that "[n]o waiver by either party, whether express or implied, of any provision of th[e] [License] Agreement, or of any breach or default thereof, shall constitute a continuing waiver of such provision or of any other provision of this Agreement."
Lastly, section 20A of the license agreement sets forth a number of "conditions" that had to be satisfied before the license agreement would be effective. Notably, contemporaneous with the execution of the license agreement, "Perfumania" was required (1) to execute a sublicense agreement with Artistic Brands, (2) to issue to SCE warrants to purchase, at a designated price, a specified quantity and quality of common stock in "Perfumania," and (3) to sign a particular letter assigning certain profits to SCE. Section 20B provides that defendants "have a direct claim against Perfumania on the guaranty for breaches of the [licensing] [a]greement."
Consistent with section 20A, two other transactions occurred on April 18, 2012. In one transaction, Artistic Brands sub-licensed its rights and obligations under the license to plaintiff Parlux Fragrances, LLC (Parlux), a subsidiary of plaintiff Perfumania Holdings, Inc. (Perfumania). Parlux "assume[d] all of [Artistic Brands’] obligations ... under the [licensing] [a]greement." The signatories to the sublicense agreement were, through their respective members or agents, Parlux, defendants, and Artistic Brands. In the other transaction, Perfumania executed the assignment letter with SCE and Artistic Brands. Under the assignment letter, certain profits derived from the licensing of the Jay-Z trademark were assigned to SCE. Additionally, at some point Perfumania provided Carter with approximately $2.8 million in common stock in that corporation.
During the 2013 holiday season, Parlux launched a product line called GOLD JAY-Z, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Flaherty v. Dixon
... ... 9, 2020) (cleaned up) (quoting ... Townsend v. Benjamin Enters., Inc. , 679 F.3d 41, 57 ... (2d Cir. 2012); Feingold v. New York , ... 4574890, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 5, 2018); see also Parlux ... Fragrances, LLC v. S. Carter Enters., LLC , 164 N.Y.S.3d ... ...
-
Flaherty v. Dixon
... ... 9, 2020) (cleaned up) (quoting ... Townsend v. Benjamin Enters., Inc. , 679 F.3d 41, 57 ... (2d Cir. 2012); Feingold v. New York , ... 4574890, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 5, 2018); see also Parlux ... Fragrances, LLC v. S. Carter Enters., LLC , 164 N.Y.S.3d ... ...
-
Prinkipas LLC v. Charlton Tenants Corp
... ... contractual obligations and seeks the same damages ( see ... Parlux Fragrances, LLC v S. Carter Enterprises, LLC , 204 ... A.D.3d 72 [1 st ... ...
-
Prinkipas LLC v. Charlton Tenants Corp
... ... contractual obligations and seeks the same damages ( see ... Parlux Fragrances, LLC v S. Carter Enterprises, LLC , 204 ... A.D.3d 72 [1 st ... ...