Interessante sentenza di appello statunitense tra una designer di abiti da nozze e l’azienda con cui aveva stipulato un contratto di collaborazione, che prevedeva diverse litmitazioni di concorrenza a carico della prima e a favore della seconda.
Si tratta di US court of appeals, 2 circuit, 25.01.2022, Case 21-870, ILM Couture, Inc. v. Gutman.
La designer perde circa il patto di non concorrenza (“Noncompete Agreement”) e circa quello inerente all’uso commerciale del proprio nome (“Name-Rights Agreement” (p. 8-9).
Effettivamente la dismissione in contratto da parte della designer dei propri diritti a favore dell’azienda era stata decisamente ampia:
<<she would “not compete with [JLM], directly or indirectly.” Id. § 9(a) (the 12 “Noncompete Agreement”). Competition includes “engag[ing] in, or . . .13 associat[ing] with (whether as an officer, director, shareholder, partner, employee, independent contractor, agent, or otherwise), any person, organization or enterprise which engages in the design, manufacture, marketing or sale”of goods within JLM’s business. Id.>>, p. 8.
E sul diritto al nome: << Gutman first agreed, in section 10(a), to give JLM “exclusive world-wide right and license” to the Designer’s Name in connection with bridal wear for the extended Term plus two years, “provided [Gutman] has substantially participated in the design or creation of such clothing or related items.” Id. Should JLM fail to register Designer’s Name as a trademark, that license dissolves two years after “termination of [Gutman’s] employment.” Id. Next, in section 10(b), Gutman agreed to transfer to JLM the right to register the Designer’s Name as trademarks (the “Trademarks”) for the extended Term plus two years. Id. § 10(b). She also agreed:
The Trademarks shall in perpetuity be the exclusive property of [JLM], [Gutman] having consented to it being filed by [JLM] and [Gutman] shall have no right to the use of the Trademarks, Designer’s Name or any confusingly similar marks or names in trade or commerce during the Term or any time thereafter without the express written consent of [JLM].
id. (emphasis added) (the “Name-Rights Agreement”). The Contract further reiterates that Gutman “assign[ed] to [JLM] . . . the Designer’s Name and the Trademarks.” Id. § 10(c). Additionally, Gutman agreed that “all designs, drawings, notes, patterns, sketches, prototypes, samples, improvements to existing works, and any other works conceived of or developed by [Gutman] in connection with her employment” involving bridal products (the “Designs”) “are works for hire” deemed to be owned by JLM. Id. § 11; see also 17 U.S.C. § 101 (defining “work made for hire” under the copyright law). The Contract is silent on ownership of other kinds of property besides the Designs, the Trademarks, and the rights to Designer’s Name>>, p. 9.
Vince invece sull’accesso ai tre social media (sub D, p. 25 ss) rivendicati dall’azienda (Instagram, TikTok, and Pinterest) ma solo per ragioni processuali. Dato infatti che la sentenza di primo grado non poteva dirsi fondata sulle ragini dedotte dallì’azienda (conversion and trespass to chattels -più o meno azioni possessorie- , basati sul seizure of control -leggi: cambio di credenziali- operato dalla designer), non è chiaro per il giudice di appello su che base abbia inibito l’uso degli account alal designer.
La sentenza è fonte di informazioni e e suggerimenti di cautela anche per gli operatori italiani nella redazione di contratti analoghi.
(notizia e link alla sentenza dal blog del prof. Eric Goldman)