Opinion ID: 2155881
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Cross-Promotion

Text: The Viacom cross-promotion term provides that Viacom ... agrees to cross-promote the WWF programming contemplated hereunder across its various media platforms and outlets (including television, radio and billboards). The level of such cross-promotion shall be determined on an annual basis, with Viacom preparing an annual cross-promotion plan which shall be reviewed with WWFE. USA struck all three cross-promotional platforms and outlets ( i.e., television, radio and billboards) from its purported match of the Viacom offer, but added, equivocally, the phrase as well as any additional promotion. [27] The Court of Chancery held that USA failed to match the cross-promotional obligations of the Viacom proposal that were material and directly related to the Series. The Court concluded: Ultimately, therefore, I am not persuaded that USA's equivocal match of portions of the cross-promotion provision in Viacom's offer constitutes an unconditional acceptance. Instead I find that USA effectively made a counteroffer to WWFE regarding the form and type of promotion it would provide under the agreement. [28] USA contends that the Court of Chancery erred when it determined that USA had not manifested valid acceptance of a cross-promotion term in Viacom's offer. USA argues that the trial court misconstrued USA's attempted match, that the cross-promotion term was ephemeral and undefined and that the term dragged in extraneous programming that went outside the subject matter. The record illustrates that WWFE had successfully used the various media platforms, including billboards, to advertise some of its other events. Aware of the success with using these methods of cross-promotion, WWFE wanted to use all of these platforms to cross-promote the Series. Viacom was prepared to employ its own resources to that end. USA apparently was not. It is arguable whether USA itself could have cross-promoted via radio or on bill-boards because it does not control radio or billboard media sources. This does not, however, mean that USA could not cross-promote on these platforms by contracting with a third party for radio time and bill-board space. The fact that the cross-promotion term in the Viacom proffer refers to its [Viacom's] various media platforms, not simply various media platforms, does not create a situation where it is impossible for USA to match. Although USA may not have had the internal capability to provide the cross-promotion required to match the Viacom proposal, it had the capability to contract with others to do so. The Court of Chancery found that USA did not agree unequivocally to do so. The cross-promotion term related to the subject matter of the Series and was a business condition that was important to WWFE. USA effectively treated cross-promotion as an immaterial term, and the Court of Chancery correctly found this was a material term relating to the subject matter of the Series. Therefore, USA's match must provide an unequivocal commitment to cross-promotion that is substantially equivalent to the Viacom proposal. [29] Instead, USA struck all three cross-promotion provisions in their entirety, and its commitment (such as it was) was equivocal. Accordingly, the Court of Chancery was clearly correct in holding that USA failed to match the material cross-promotion provision. [30]