Opinion ID: 174766
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court's Determinations

Text: The district court determined that Appellants are the rightful owners of the ASR marks. It concluded that SAC could not enforce the agreement requiring Appellants to transfer the intellectual property because SAC had not satisfied the conditions precedent contained in the stock purchase agreement, including its obligation to issue stock to Appellants. The district court also found that SAC could not enforce the agreement because it had unclean hands: while the stock purchase agreement required SAC to take the best overall actions for the company, SAC in fact diverted many of the ASR student course fees to RealtyU rather than keeping the fees itself. The district court noted that [f]rom September 8, 2005, until July 12, 2006, [i]t is undisputed that ... SAC had permission or an implied license to use the ASR Trademarks. It also concluded that Appellants' conduct after the July 12, 2006 cease-and-desist letter led SAC, RealtyU, and Swanepoel to believe they had permission to continue using the ASR marks, and it denied damages and royalties for that period in light of [Appellants'] acquiescence to [Appellees'] use of the trademarks after the cease-and-desist letter and the initiation of litigation. For the same reason, the district court declined to award attorneys' fees. The district court did, however, permanently enjoin SAC, RealtyU, and Swanepoel from infringing or otherwise making use of Appellants' intellectual property.