Case Title: Riedlinger v. Steam Brothers, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 20120111

State: north-dakota

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 2013-01-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN
THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2013 ND
14John Riedlinger, Steam Brothers  of Austin/Albert Lea, LLC, Dale
Stroh, Kevin Vetter, K&M, Inc., Leo Horner, and Duane Leier, Plaintiffs
and Appelleesv. Steam Brothers, Inc., d/b/a Steam Brothers Carpet
Cleaning, Defendant and AppellantNo. 20120111Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh
County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Cynthia M. Feland, Judge.REVERSED AND REMANDED.Opinion of the Court by VandeWalle, Chief Justice.Rob A. Stefonowicz (argued) and John A. Cotter (on
brief), 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55431, for plaintiffs and appellees. Benjamin J. Hasbrouck (argued), 51B Broadway, Suite
402, Fargo, N.D. 58102-4970, for defendant and appellant.Emily Duke (on brief), 200 South
6th Street, Suite 4000, Minneapolis, MN 55402-1425, for defendant and appellant.Riedlinger v. Steam Brothers,
Inc.No. 20120111VandeWalle, Chief Justice.[¶1] Steam Brothers, Inc., doing business as Steam Brothers Carpet Cleaning,
appealed from a summary judgment in a declaratory judgment action by John Riedlinger, Dale
Stroh, Kevin Vetter, Leo Horner, and Duane Leier, five individuals with separate license
agreements creating business relationships with Steam Brothers (collectively referred to as
"licensees"), in which the district court decided the clear and unambiguous language of the license
agreements did not obligate the licensees to provide Steam Brothers and its current owner, Jerry
Thomas, with certain business information and precluded Steam Brothers from terminating the
license agreements absent mutual consent of the parties. We reverse and remand, concluding the
license agreements are ambiguous about the parties' rights and obligations.I[¶2] In 1983, Adam Leier formed Steam Brothers,
a Bismarck-based business for residential and commercial carpet cleaning and related services,
including furniture and drapery cleaning and water and smoke damage remediation. Steam
Brothers registered "Steam Brothers" as a service mark(1) with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for use
in connection with its carpet cleaning and related services, and Steam Brothers franchised
independently owned businesses to use its cleaning system and service mark in designated
geographic territories. The five licensees are all relatives of Adam Leier and have each operated
separate businesses using the Steam Brothers' cleaning system and service mark in designated
geographic territories in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota since the 1980s. The
licensees initially executed separate agreements with Steam Brothers and Adam Leier, which
required each licensee to pay an on-going franchise fee to Steam Brothers. According to Adam
Leier, he provided each licensee extensive training under the Steam Brothers' system, including
on-the-job training and seminars in fiber identity, chemical use, cleaning methods, odor control,
promotion, and advertising. The licensees initially purchased cleaning chemicals and supplies
directly from Steam Brothers, which Adam Leier said allowed him to monitor the licensees'
business operations and cleaning methods under the Steam Brothers' system and service
mark.[¶3] According to Adam Leier, the licensees became
dissatisfied with their business relationship with Steam Brothers in 1991, informing him they no
longer wanted to pay Steam Brothers the on-going franchise fee, and he agreed to eliminate the
fee and enter new license agreements with each licensee. In May 1991, the licensees and Steam
Brothers, through Adam Leier, executed separate license agreements, which stated the new
agreements terminated and replaced the prior agreements and fully governed the parties'
relationship. In 1996, Steam Brothers amended its license agreement with Kevin Vetter after legal
proceedings about the scope of his designated territory. As relevant to the issues in this case,
Steam Brothers' 1996 license agreement with Vetter is substantially the same as the 1991
agreements with the other four licensees.[¶4] The operative license
agreements said the respective licensees had been franchisees within the Steam Brothers' cleaning
system under a prior license agreement, and Steam Brothers and the licensees were "desirous of
converting the said franchise relationship between the parties to a very different type of business
relationship." Under the new agreements, the licensees were no longer required to pay Steam
Brothers an on-going franchise fee; instead, each licensee paid Steam Brothers a lump sum of
$12,000 "as a fee to terminate the prior License Agreement." The new agreements did not grant
the licensees an ownership or proprietary right in Steam Brothers' name, service mark, or other
material. Rather, the new agreements said the licensee had the "right to use any designs, devices,
marks, service marks, trademarks, trade names, systems slogans or symbols connected with and
including the name of Steam Brothers or A-1 Steam Brothers" in the licensee's designated
geographic territory. The agreements said that in order to protect the goodwill and reputation of
"Steam Brothers' names, marks, other related material, and carpet cleaning and related system,"
the licensee "shall conduct the subject business operation in a manner that reflects favorably on
such names, marks, other material, and carpet cleaning and related system" and the licensee shall
not "in any way be involved in any activity of any kind which negatively [a]ffects [Steam Brothers,
its] franchises or affiliates, or the reputations or business activities related thereto."[¶5] The new agreements said Adam Leier may be available to consult the
licensees for a consulting fee, but the licensees "shall no longer be entitled to any advertising
materials, toll free number, visits, training, or other obligations of any kind from" Steam Brothers.
Under the new agreements, for five years from the date of any transfer of the licensees' business to
an unrelated entity or from termination of the agreement for any reason, the licensees agreed not
to engage in the same or a substantially similar business. During the term of the agreements,
Steam Brothers and Adam Leier, or their successors, also agreed not to engage in the same or a
substantially similar business in the licensees' designated geographic territories. The agreements
also precluded Steam Brothers from divulging or communicating any information or knowledge
about the licensees' "customer names and addresses, business methods, operating procedures or
programs or methods of promotion and sales," which were communicated to Steam Brothers
under the new agreements or under the prior agreements.[¶6]
Under the new agreements, the licensees acknowledged Steam Brothers would suffer irreparable
injury if the licensees failed to maintain the standards or requirements regarding Steam Brothers'
name and service mark, and the licensees agreed if they anticipatorily or actually breached the
agreement, Steam Brothers was entitled "in addition to any other remedies and damages available:
(a) to an injunction to restrain any such violation and/or to compel specific
performance . . . and (b) to attorneys' fees and legal costs for the bringing and
maintaining of such action." The new agreements said nothing in those agreements "shall be
construed to prohibit [Steam Brothers] from pursuing any other remedy available to [Steam
Brothers] for such breach, including the recovery of damages." The new agreements explained
Steam Brothers and the licensees were not joint venturers, partners or agents of each other and
"neither shall have the power to obligate the other, except as set forth" in the agreements. The
new agreements specified they "contain[ed] the entire understanding of the parties" and no
agreements not embodied in them would be given any force or effect. The agreements also
identified their duration as "that period of time during which the Licensee, the Licensee's
corporate entity, or a member of the Licensee's immediate family shall be involved in the subject
business governed by this Agreement."[¶7] In October 2008,
Adam Leier sold Steam Brothers to Jerry Thomas, who also owns a separate business that
provides cleaning services similar to the services provided by the licensees. According to some
licensees, Steam Brothers wrote to them in August 2009, asserting they could only use Steam
Brothers' name and service mark for carpet cleaning. The licensees claimed Steam Brothers
thereafter asked them to provide a list of services they performed so Steam Brothers could
determine whether the services constituted carpet cleaning and related services. According to
Thomas, the licensees had stopped buying chemicals and other supplies from Steam Brothers, and
he had no information about the type and method of work the licensees were doing under Steam
Brothers' name and service mark. Thomas claimed he also had received some complaints and
negative comments about the quality of work done by some of the licensees under Steam
Brothers' name. Steam Brothers thereafter sought certain business information from the licensees,
including chemicals used, customer lists, brochures, marketing materials, business methods, and
operating procedures. Steam Brothers claimed the information was necessary to monitor the
licensees' use of Steam Brothers' service mark. The licensees refused to provide the information to
Steam Brothers, and Steam Brothers thereafter sent Leo Horner a letter, stating his license
agreement was terminated effective October 5, 2010, because he refused to meet with Thomas or
to provide Steam Brothers with certain business information.[¶8]
In a complaint dated October 11, 2010, the five licensees sued Steam Brothers for a declaration of
their rights and obligations under the license agreements. The licensees claimed they were not
obligated to provide their business information to Steam Brothers under the terms of the license
agreements, the agreements did not include any implied terms, and Steam Brothers was not
entitled to terminate the agreements for failure to provide the business information. The licensees
sought to enjoin Steam Brothers from terminating the agreements for failing to provide the
requested information. On October 29, 2010, Steam Brothers wrote Riedlinger, Stroh, Vetter,
and Duane Leier, requesting certain business information and stating their license agreements
would be terminated effective November 5, 2010, if they failed to provide the requested
information. The licensees did not provide Steam Brothers with the requested information. Steam
Brothers thereafter answered the licensees' complaint for declaratory relief and counterclaimed for
breach of contract and trademark infringement. Steam Brothers alleged the licensees had breached
their license agreements, because they were operating their businesses in a manner that reflected
unfavorably on Steam Brothers' service mark. Steam Brothers also claimed it had lawfully
terminated the license agreements and the licensees' subsequent unauthorized use of Steam
Brothers' service mark constituted trademark infringement. After a discovery dispute, the court
granted the licensees a protective order, preventing Steam Brothers from discovering the
licensees' customers, customer lists, referral sources, marketing materials, and information about
services provided, certifications, and compliance with industry standards.[¶9] The licensees moved for summary judgment. Steam Brothers resisted the
motion and sought a continuance for further discovery under N.D.R.Civ.P. 56(f). The district court denied Steam
Brothers' request for a continuance and granted the licensees summary judgment. The court
concluded the license agreements were clear and unambiguous and did not require the licensees to
provide the requested business information to Steam Brothers. The court also concluded the
license agreements could not be terminated without the parties' mutual consent and dismissed
Steam Brothers' counterclaims for breach of contract and trademark infringement.II[¶10] Our standard of review of summary
judgment is well-established:Summary judgment is a procedural device
used to promptly resolve a controversy on the merits without a trial if either party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law and the material facts are undisputed or if resolving the disputed facts
would not alter the result. "'Summary judgment is inappropriate if neither party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law or if reasonable differences of opinion exist as to the inferences to be
drawn from the undisputed facts.'" Whether a district court has properly granted a motion for
summary judgment is a question of law, which this Court reviews de novo on the record.
When we review a district court's decision on a motion for summary judgment, we view the
evidence in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion and give the opposing party
all favorable inferences. In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, the court may
examine the pleadings, depositions, admissions, affidavits, interrogatories, and inferences to be
drawn from the evidence. The moving party must show there are no genuine issues of material
fact and the case is appropriate for judgment as a matter of law. A party resisting the motion for
summary judgment "cannot merely rely on the pleadings or other unsupported conclusory
allegations, but must present competent admissible evidence by affidavit or other comparable
means which raises an issue of material fact." Burris Carpet Plus, Inc. v. Burris, 2010 ND
118, ¶¶ 10-11, 785 N.W.2d 164 (citations omitted).[¶11] A district court's decision
to deny additional discovery under N.D.R.Civ.P.
56(f), as well as a protective order limiting discovery, are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
Burris Carpet, 2010 ND 118, ¶ 49, 785 N.W.2d 164. A court
abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner, if its
decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination, or if
it misinterprets or misapplies the law. In re
Conservatorship of T.K., 2009 ND 195, ¶ 10, 775 N.W.2d 496.III[¶12] Steam Brothers argues the district court
erred in construing the parties' current license agreements and deciding the licensees were not
obligated to provide Steam Brothers with the requested business information. Steam Brothers
asserts there are factual disputes under N.D.C.C. §§ 9-07-20 and 9-07-21
about whether the agreements include implied terms that reasonably obligate the licensees to
provide Steam Brothers with the requested information. Steam Brothers also contends there are
fact issues about whether the licensees were obligated to provide Steam Brothers with the
requested information under North Dakota law applying custom and usage. Steam Brothers
claims the licensees breached their obligation to provide the requested information and it was
entitled to terminate the agreements as a result of their breach. Steam Brothers further argues the
court erred in granting the licensees summary judgment without providing Steam Brothers an
adequate opportunity for discovery. The licensees respond additional discovery was not
necessary, because the parties' current license agreements are fully integrated and clearly and
unambiguously do not require them to provide Steam Brothers with the requested information or
permit Steam Brothers to unilaterally terminate the agreements.[¶13] The parties' arguments about additional discovery are intertwined with the
underlying interpretation of their current license agreements, and we therefore consider the
discovery issue in conjunction with the interpretation of agreements that explicitly state they "shall
be governed by and construed under and in accordance with the laws of the State of North
Dakota."[¶14] Under North Dakota law, contracts are construed
to give effect to the parties' mutual intent when contracting. N.D.C.C. § 9-07-03.
"The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation if the language is clear and explicit and
does not involve an absurdity." N.D.C.C. § 9-07-02. "When a contract is reduced to
writing, the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the writing alone if possible."
N.D.C.C. § 9-07-04. A contract must be interpreted as a whole to give effect to each
clause and part, and words in a contract must be understood in their ordinary and popular sense
unless used by the parties in a technical sense, or unless a special meaning is given to the words by
usage. N.D.C.C. §§ 9-07-06 and 9-07-09. "A contract may be explained by
reference to the circumstances under which it was made and the matter to which it relates."
N.D.C.C. § 9-07-12. "Stipulations which are necessary to make a contract
reasonable or conformable to usage are implied in respect to matters concerning which the
contract manifests no contrary intention." N.D.C.C. § 9-07-20. "All things that in law
or usage are considered as incidental to a contract or as necessary to carry it into effect are
implied therefrom, unless some of them are mentioned expressly therein[, and i]n such case, all
other things of the same class are deemed to be excluded." N.C.C.C.
§ 9-07-21.[¶15] In Langer v. Bartholomay, 2008 ND 40, ¶ 12, 745 N.W.2d 649 (citations
omitted), we described applicable standards for interpreting
contracts:Interpretation of a contract is a question of law, if the parties'
intent can be determined from the language of the contract alone. Whether a contract is
ambiguous is a question of law, which we review independently. A contract is ambiguous if
rational arguments can be made for different interpretations. If a contract is ambiguous, extrinsic
evidence may be considered to determine the parties' intent, and the terms of the contract and the
parties' intent become questions of fact. "'If a written contract is unambiguous, extrinsic evidence
is not admissible to contradict the written language.'"[¶16] The district court decided the parties' current license agreements clearly
and unambiguously did not require the licensees to provide Steam Brothers with the requested
business information and could not be terminated without the parties' mutual consent. The court
explained the agreements neither authorized nor required the licensees to divulge any information
about the day-to-day operations of their respective businesses, but the parties' prior franchise
agreements required disclosure of that information. The court stated the parties left the current
agreements silent about the licensees' obligation to disclose business information, which was a
departure from the requirement in the prior agreements and was consistent with their stated desire
to convert the prior franchise relationship to a very different type of business relationship. The
court compared the current license agreements with the prior franchise agreements and based on
that comparison and the court's assessment of the circumstances under which the new agreements
were executed, the court said "it can be concluded that the disclosure of the requested information
is not required under the current license agreements." The court also explained that interpreting
the license agreements to imply a requirement for the licensees to provide Steam Brothers with
the requested information would be absurd. The court decided the parties intended that the
current agreements did not require the licensees to provide Steam Brothers with information
about the licensees' businesses or customers.[¶17] Although the
district court said the license agreements were clear and unambiguous, the court considered some
extrinsic evidence about the parties' prior franchise relationship and compared the prior and the
current agreements to determine the parties' intent. In construing the parties' current agreements,
the court effectively examined the circumstances under which the new agreements were made and
the matter to which they relate under N.D.C.C. § 9-07-12. This Court has
recognized that "[w]hen a contract is ambiguous, circumstances at the time of contracting may be
used as evidence to construe it." Williston Educ.
Ass'n v. Williston Pub. Sch. Dist., 483 N.W.2d 567, 570 (N.D. 1992) (citing N.D.C.C. § 9-07-12 and Heitkamp v. Milbank Mut. Ins.
Co., 383 N.W.2d 834, 836 (N.D.
1986)). See also Walle Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Sweeney, 419 N.W.2d 176, 180
(N.D. 1988). The district court's reliance on extrinsic evidence to construe the parties' current
agreements is contrary to its conclusion the agreements were clear and unambiguous and to the
applicable rules for granting summary judgment.[¶18] Our
interpretation of the parties' current license agreements initially focuses on the four corners of
those documents. The current agreements do not explicitly include language addressing the
licensees' obligation to provide information about their businesses to Steam Brothers. The
licensees essentially claim the parties' intentionally left the current agreements silent about their
obligation to provide Steam Brothers with business information. The licensees' assertion
represents one reasonable interpretation of the agreements. However, the agreements also require
the licensees to "conduct the subject business operation in a manner that reflects favorably on
[Steam Brothers'] names, marks, other material, and carpet cleaning and related system" and say
the licensees shall not "in any way be involved in any activity of any kind which negatively
[a]ffects [Steam Brothers, its] franchises or affiliates, or the reputations or business activities
related thereto." The clear import of that language does not contemplate unfettered and
uncontrolled use of Steam Brothers' service mark. Although the current agreements state they
constitute the entire understanding of the parties and fully govern the parties' relationship, the
agreements are nevertheless unclear about Steam Brothers' control of its service mark and the
licensees' obligation to provide business information to Steam Brothers in view of the explicit
requirements for the licensees to conduct their businesses in a manner that reflects favorably on
Steam Brothers and in a manner that does not negatively affect Steam Brothers' reputation or
business activities. The licensees' reliance on language that "neither [party] shall have the power to
obligate the other, except as is set forth in this Agreement" to unambiguously preclude any
obligation to provide business information to Steam Brothers is misplaced. The entire context of
that language says the parties "are not joint ventures, partners, or agents of each other, and
neither shall have the power to obligate the other, except as set forth" in the agreement. That
clause suggests a reference to the power of one party to obligate the other to third parties and
does not clearly and unambiguously limit the licensees' obligation to provide business information
to Steam Brothers.[¶19] The language of the current license
agreement explicitly provides Steam Brothers with some control over the licensees' use of Steam
Brothers' name and service mark, and given that language, we conclude the agreement, when read
as a whole, is not clear and unambiguous about the extent of the licensees' obligations. According
to Adam Leier, he insisted the current license agreements include language protecting and
promoting the goodwill and reputation of Steam Brothers' name, marks, franchise, and business
reputation. Adam Leier admitted the new license agreements did not specifically include language
for enforcing those requirements, but he claimed he intended to be able to monitor the licensees'
compliance with the standards and requirements in the license agreements and expected to be able
to obtain information for monitoring the licensees' compliance with the requirements. Adam Leier
also indicated the confidentiality provisions in the agreements, which preclude Steam Brothers
from divulging certain business information communicated directly or indirectly by the licensees to
Steam Brothers under the prior or current agreements, contemplates Steam Brothers may obtain
some business information from the licensees. The confidentiality provisions can reasonably be
given some meaning if disclosure of some information to Steam Brothers is required. However,
the meaning of that confidentiality language is unclear if the licensor may not obtain any business
information under the agreements, and the application of the provisions authorizing Steam
Brothers to pursue any other available remedy for a breach, including damages, also would be
unclear if the licensor was unable to obtain any information about how the licensees were
operating their businesses under Steam Brothers' service mark.[¶20] Considering the parties' current license agreements as a whole, we
conclude rational arguments can be made for different interpretations of those agreements. We
therefore conclude the current agreements are ambiguous, and the district court erred in deciding
as a matter of law the parties intended that the agreements not require the licensees to provide
Steam Brothers with business information for monitoring the licensees' use of Steam Brothers'
service mark. The resolution of the parties' intent is a question of fact, which is inappropriate for
summary judgment. See Langer,
2008 ND 40, ¶ 12, 745 N.W.2d 649.IV[¶21] Steam Brothers also argues the
district court erred in construing the parties' current license agreements and deciding the
agreements could not be terminated without the parties' mutual consent.[¶22] The district court explained "it is reasonable to conclude that the parties
intended to have a very different method or standard for termination of the license agreements
than that included in the [prior] franchise agreements" and concluded the agreements could not be
terminated unless both parties consented to the termination.[¶23]
A party breaches a contract when the party fails to perform a contractual duty when due. Langer, 2008 ND 40, ¶ 11, 745 N.W.2d 649. This Court
has generally recognized the material breach of a contract by one party gives the non-breaching
party a right to terminate the contract. See Keller v. Hummel, 334 N.W.2d 200, 203 (N.D. 1983); Tower City Grain Co. v. Richman, 262 N.W.2d 22, 24 (N.D. 1978). Some authorities have recognized
that license agreements may include specific language giving the licensee an "irrevocable" and
"perpetual" license that cannot be terminated even for a licensee's material breach of the
agreement. See Nano-Proprietary, Inc. v. Canon, Inc., 537 F.3d 394, 400-01
(5th Cir. 2008) (holding license agreement granting licensee irrevocable, fully paid-up, and
perpetual license could not be terminated even for licensee's material breach of
agreement).[¶24] Here, the parties' license agreements
specifically say the "term . . . shall be that period of time during which the
Licensee, the Licensee's corporate entity, or a member of the Licensee's immediate family shall be
involved in the subject business." However, the agreements also
provide:The Licensee recognizes that irreparable injury will result if the
Licensee does not maintain the standards or requirements [pertaining to protecting Steam
Brothers' goodwill and reputation and conducting business in a manner that reflects favorably on
Steam Brothers' service mark] or if the Licensee breaches any of the terms and provisions of this
Agreement. The Licensee therefore agrees that, in the event that the Licensee anticipatorily or
actually breaches any such conditions, terms or provisions, [Steam Brothers] shall be entitled, in
addition to any other remedies and damages available: (a) to an injunction to restrain any such
violation and/or to compel specific performance of the terms and conditions hereof and (b) to
attorneys' fees and legal costs for the bringing and maintaining of such action. Nothing herein
contained shall be construed to prohibit [Steam Brothers] from pursuing any other remedy
available to [Steam Brothers] for such breach, including the recovery of
damages. Moreover, language in a non-competition provision precludes the
licensee from engaging in a similar business for five years from "termination of this Agreement for
any reason."[¶25] The licensees claim the language about the
term of the license agreements gives them a "lifelong" license and does not give Steam Brothers a
right to unilaterally terminate the agreements. According to Adam Leier, the agreements had no
specific termination provision, but he intended to be able to terminate a licensee's agreement if the
licensee breached the agreement. Under the language of the agreements for breaches, Steam
Brothers is entitled, in addition to any other remedies and damages available, to injunctive relief to
restrain violation of the agreement and to compel specific performance, and Steam Brothers may
pursue any other remedy available for a breach, including damages. The broad language about
remedies does not preclude a remedy of termination for a material breach and no other provisions
in the agreements explicitly limit the grounds for termination of the agreements.[¶26] We conclude rational arguments can be made for both parties'
interpretations of the license agreements. We therefore conclude the language in the parties'
current license agreements, when read together, is not clear and unambiguous about termination
of the agreements for breach. The resolution of the parties' intent is a question of fact which is
inappropriate for summary judgment. See Langer, 2008 ND 40, ¶ 12, 745 N.W.2d 649. We
therefore reverse the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings on this
issue.[¶27] We recognize this declaratory judgment action
includes counterclaims for breach of contract and trademark infringement as well as allegations
that the license agreements have been terminated. Because we have concluded the license
agreements are ambiguous about the licensees' obligations to provide business information to
Steam Brothers and about termination, we conclude any discussion about the counterclaims and
the array of potential remedies relating to termination is premature. See Bangen v. Bartelson, 553 N.W.2d 754, 756-57 (N.D. 1996) (recognizing N.D.C.C.
§ 32-23-03 of the provisions for declaratory judgments authorizes a court to
construe a contract before or after breach).V[¶28] Because of our resolution of the issues raised in this appeal, we conclude
Steam Brothers is entitled to additional discovery on issues relating to the parties' intent for
purposes of construing the ambiguous license agreements. To the extent Steam Brothers alleges
specific instances of a breach of the licensees' obligation to conduct their business in a manner that
reflects favorably on Steam Brothers' service mark and the licensees' obligation to not be involved
in any activity that negatively impacts Steam Brothers, we further conclude Steam Brothers is
entitled to limited discovery on those issues, which the district court may supervise through in
camera proceedings. VI[¶29] We reverse the
judgment and remand for further proceedings.[¶30] Gerald W. VandeWalle,
C.J.Carol Ronning KapsnerMary Muehlen MaringDaniel J. CrothersThomas
E. Merrick, D.J. [¶31] The Honorable Thomas E. Merrick, D.J., sitting in place of Sandstrom, J.,
disqualified.Footnote:1. A
"service mark" means "any word, name, symbol, or device or any combination thereof used by a
person to identify and distinguish the services of one person, including a unique service, from the
services of others, and to indicate the source of the services, even if that source is unknown."
N.D.C.C. § 47-22-01(5).