A federal court in Missouri has granted in part a franchisee’s motion to enforce a settlement agreement and awarded the franchisee its attorneys’ fees as the “prevailing party.” Biologix Franchise Marketing Corp. v. Kay Logic, 2020 WL 33108 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 2, 2020). Biologix and its former franchisee, Kay Logic, entered into a settlement agreement whereby Kay Logic would make monthly installment payments to Biologix. A portion of each installment payment would serve as a credit toward the purchase of Biologix’s products, which Kay Logic was permitted to sell without restriction, using the Biologix trademark. After Kay Logic communicated its intention to sell Biologix products on Amazon and requested Biologix’s cooperation in creating an Amazon storefront (including providing a trademark registration certificate and safety data sheets meeting Amazon’s approval), Biologix verbally informed Kay Logic it could no longer sell products using the Biologix trademark. Kay Logic thereafter moved to “enforce” the settlement agreement seeking (1) termination of the settlement agreement and its payment obligation thereunder, (2) a refund of past payments, (3) attorneys’ fees and costs, and (4) damages in the form of its investment costs in the Amazon storefront.
The court found that Biologix breached the settlement agreement by attempting to restrict Kay Logic’s use of the Biologix trademark and sale of Biologix products. However, the court found the parties did not reach a meeting of the minds regarding the extent of Biologix’s “further assurances” obligation such that Biologix would be required to modify its safety data sheets to support Kay Logic’s Amazon fulfillment plans. The court therefore granted specific performance of the settlement agreement to the extent Kay Logic was entitled to use the Biologix trademark to sell Biologix products without restriction. The court found Biologix’s conduct did not, however, constitute a default sufficient to excuse the entirety of Kay Logic’s remaining debt under the agreement. Despite the narrow relief awarded, which maintained the former franchisee’s obligations under the settlement agreement, the court found Kay Logic to be the “prevailing party” and awarded its attorneys’ fees.
Maisa Frank represents clients in a variety of litigation matters. Whether conducting pre-dispute investigations, navigating litigation, or negotiating resolutions, Maisa’s advice and strategy is vital to clients facing ...
Richard Landon is a trial and appellate attorney who advises and represents businesses resolving disputes in antitrust, distribution, and franchising, as well as shareholder disputes and other complex commercial litigation ...
The information contained in this post is provided to alert you to legal developments and should not be considered legal advice. It is not intended to and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Specific questions about how this information affects your particular situation should be addressed to one of the individuals listed. No representations or warranties are made with respect to this information, including, without limitation, as to its completeness, timeliness, or accuracy, and Lathrop GPM shall not be liable for any decision made in connection with the information. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.
About this Publication
The Franchise Memorandum is a collection of postings on summaries of recent legal developments of interest to franchisors brought to you by Lathrop GPM LLP.
To subscribe to monthly emails for The Franchise Memorandum, please click here.