A federal judge from the District of Massachusetts has provided a partial victory to the USA Rugby Football Union, which was sued by a vendor of rugby clothing and gear after allegedly violating the terms of an exclusive sponsorship agreement between the parties.
Specifically, the court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as it related to the plaintiff’s claim for misrepresentation, violation of Chapter 93A and unjust enrichment. However, the court denied USA Rudgy’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, finding a breach may have occurred.
The plaintiff in the instant case was Ruggers, Inc., d/b/a KooGa North America. In early 2004, KooGa discussed with USA Rugby, a non-profit organization that promotes the sport of rugby in the United States, a proposed agreement by which KooGa would become the exclusive provider of “rugby kits” to the various national rugby teams that USA Rugby organizes and sponsors. A rugby kit, noted the court, “consists basically of the rugby uniform (jersey, shorts and socks) that the players wear on the field. In exchange, KooGa was to obtain the right to use the USA Rugby trademark on its replica clothing and products and to identify itself as the exclusive kit supplier to USA Rugby’s national teams.”
In the spring of 2004, the parties created a document that was “intended to reflect the essential terms of the agreement” with plans to negotiate and execute a long-form contract within 30 days. It took three years, however, before a contract was finally signed.
KooGa alleged in its complaint that everything was fine up until mid-2006 when the defendant allegedly began breaching the 2007 contract “by 1) allowing the USA Rugby logo to be used on competing products, 2) allowing USA Rugby teams to wear and promote competitors’ clothing and 3) selling and promoting competitors’ brands, including through the USA Rugby website.”
In March, 2009, KooGa sued USA Rugby for willful violation of the terms of the parties’ exclusive sponsorship agreement. The plaintiff amended its complaint in August of 2009 to add claims against a number of plaintiff’s competitors.
In September 2011, USA Rugby moved to dismiss the aforementioned claims.
Tackling the breach of contract claim first, the court found USA Rugby to be vulnerable because of an email it sent in December of 2006 announcing that it had signed an official licensing agreement with one of KooGa’s competitors. “Based on such evidence, the court concludes that a reasonable jury could find USA Rugby liable for breach of contract,” wrote the court.
The plaintiff’s misrepresentation claim, meanwhile, centered on allegations that USA Rugby “falsely and repeatedly misrepresented its intention to resolve disputes over the performance of the parties’ agreement. The plaintiff does not specify whether its claim is for negligent or intentional misrepresentation, but the court concludes that plaintiff’s claim fails under either theory because the record does not support a finding that plaintiff reasonably relied on any of the alleged misrepresentations to its detriment.”
The court went on to site numerous other reasons, before concluding that KooGa “has not shown reasonable or detrimental reliance, defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be allowed with respect to plaintiff’s misrepresentation claim.”
Ruggers, INC. d/b/a/ Kooga North America v. United States of America Rugby Football Union, LTD. d/b/a USA Rugby, Canterbury of New Zealand-United States, Under Armour, INC., Crossbar Athletic Wear, Rugby Imports, LTD, XP Apparel, LLC; D. Mass.; Civil Action No. 09-30051-NMG; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10587; 1/30/12
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Kevin C. Maynard, LEAD ATTORNEY, Bulkley Richardson & Gelinas, Boston, MA. (for defendants) Dustin F. Hecker, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jon C. Cowen, Posternak, Blankstein & Lund, Boston, MA.
