Opinion ID: 780771
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Breach of License Agreement

Text: 37 The district court concluded that Jardine raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Jardine had a non-exclusive license, which expired by its own terms on December 31, 1999, to use the Beach Boys trademark. The district court then reasoned, however, that even assuming a license existed, because Jardine toured using the Beach Boys trademark in spite of BRI's objections, Jardine could not show any damages from any purported breach. Jardine contends that, because he toured as Beach Boys Family and Friends and not as The Beach Boys, he earned less income than he would have, had BRI performed under the license agreement and allowed him to tour as The Beach Boys. Jardine further contends that his damages can be calculated by looking at the amount of touring income Love earned while touring with his own band as The Beach Boys. 38 Whether Jardine's The Beach Boys, touring simultaneously and in competition with Love's The Beach Boys, would earn as much as a lone Beach Boys group is speculative. See Kids' Universe v. In2Labs, 95 Cal.App.4th 870, 116 Cal.Rptr. 2d 158, 171-72 (2002) (reasoning that profits from unlaunched website were speculative because the website would be competing with similar retailers on the same portal). Jardine has not set forth specific facts showing damages with reasonable certainty. See id. at 167-68 (requiring that damages for the loss of prospective profits from an unestablished business be shown by evidence of reasonable certainty). We therefore affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of BRI on Jardine's counterclaim for breach of license agreement. 39