Opinion ID: 792706
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: OSA Objects to the Settlement Agreement

Text: 9 After reading the terms of the Settlement Agreement, OSA officers in Switzerland refused to sign it. In particular, OSA objected to paragraph 2, which states 10 [Omega Engineering] will include a reference to Omega Engineering, Inc., Stamford, Conn., or Omega Engineering, Inc. and its location, on the shipping boxes for all Omega Engineering timers. If [Omega Engineering] uses the name Omega Engineering or any Omega trademark on the goods themselves, Omega Engineering will include a reference to Omega Engineering, Inc., Stamford, Conn., or Omega Engineering, Inc. and its location. 11 Ironically, the language in this clause was copied, in substantial part, from a proposal made by OSA's counsel in pre-settlement discussions. OSA's proposal in pre-settlement discussions did not specify which marks would trigger Omega Engineering's obligation to include a reference to Omega Engineering, Inc., Stamford, Conn., requiring such a reference if any name or mark is used on the goods themselves. Nonetheless, OSA principals in Switzerland concluded that the language was ambiguous and informed Omega Engineering that they wished to enter into a side letter clarifying this clause. OSA stated that it interpreted the clause to require Omega Engineering not to use the word Omega or the stylized &#937;, but only the mark Omega Engineering, Inc. 12 Omega Engineering refused this request and filed a motion on June 5, 2003 to enforce the Settlement Agreement. OSA opposed the motion, asserting that the parties never mutually assented to the Settlement Agreement and, absent OSA's signature, there was no agreement for the court to enforce.