Opinion ID: 623754
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether Shelton granted MoBev a license to use a trademark or related characteristic

Text: Courts have referred to interpretations of New Jersey's very similar statutory definition of `franchise' in interpreting the Missouri statute. Am. Bus. Interiors, Inc. v. Haworth, Inc., 798 F.2d 1135, 1139 (8th Cir.1986) (citing McHenry, 566 S.W.2d at 196) (relying on interpretation of New Jersey Franchise Practices Act); ABA Distribs., Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co., 542 F.Supp. 1272, 1287-88 (W.D.Mo. 1982). Like § 407.400(1), the New Jersey statute also requires the grant of a license in the franchisor's trade name, and a community of interest in a business enterprise. Haworth, 798 F.2d at 1139-40; see N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:10-3. [A] hallmark of the franchise relationship is the use of another's trade name in such a manner as to create a reasonable belief on the part of the consuming public that there is a connection between the trade name licensor and licensee by which the licensor vouches, as it were, for the activity of the licensee in respect of the subject of the trade name. Neptune T.V. & Appliance Serv., Inc. v. Litton Microwave Cooking Prods. Div., 190 N.J.Super. 153, 462 A.2d 595, 599 (App.Div.1983) (citations omitted). [N]ot every grant of permission to use a trademark in the sale of goods or services is a `license' within the meaning of the Franchise Act . . . The license contemplated by the Act is one in which the franchisee wraps himself with the trade name of the franchisor and relies on the franchisor's goodwill to induce the public to buy. Liberty Sales Assocs., Inc. v. Dow Corning Corp., 816 F.Supp. 1004, 1009-10 (D.N.J. 1993) (quoting and citing Instructional Sys., Inc. v. Computer Curriculum Corp., 130 N.J. 324, 614 A.2d 124, 138-40 (1992)). Shelton never granted MoBev a license to use its trademark or any related characteristic. MoBev never used Shelton's name in any marketing efforts, never requested to use Shelton's name, and never received Shelton's express permission to call itself an authorized Shelton dealer or otherwise use Shelton's name. Shelton's testimony that it would have given MoBev permission to use Shelton's name had a request been made plays no part in the analysis. Moreover, MoBev stated in its district court motion papers that rather than relying on or cloaking itself with the goodwill inherent in Shelton's name, MoBev relied on its own reputation to sell Shelton's products. Pl.'s Suggestions in Opp. of Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. ¶ 26 ([C]ustomers do business with MoBev because they associate MoBev with good products. MoBev salespeople mention the supplier if the supplier has a reputation of carrying good quality products, with the goal of promoting the product.) (citation omitted). Thus, it is clear that Shelton did not grant to MoBev a license to use a trade name, trademark, service mark, or related characteristic as a matter of Missouri law.