Favorable Summary Judgment Order for LeMond Suit Against Trek
12.07.09
Minneapolis, MN
In a filing dated December 4, 2009, U.S. District Judge Richard H. Kyle issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order siding with LeMond Cycling, Inc. on several claims in connection with the company’s ongoing litigation with Trek Bicycle Corporation over breach of a Sublicense Agreement to sell LeMond brand bicycles, according to Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati.
“We are pleased with the Judge’s findings in the Summary Judgment Order and will continue to pursue this case to ensure the rights of LeMond Cycling, Inc. and Greg LeMond regarding the contractual relationship with the Trek Bicycle Corporation are properly respected and fairly represented,” stated Jamie DiBoise of Wilson Sonsini, counsel for LeMond Cycling, Inc. and Greg LeMond.
The Judge:
Dismissed Trek’s claim that LeMond Cycling’s agreement with Protective Technologies, Inc. to sell LeMond accessories in Target Stores constituted a breach of the Sublicense Agreement;
Dismissed Trek’s baseless claim that Greg LeMond’s use of free and employee-priced bicycles was a breach of the Sublicense Agreement, noting that Trek’s knowledge of and assistance in each of these purchases meant that Trek had waived any basis to object to those activities by Greg LeMond;
Dismissed Trek’s motion to have the Court disregard a “best-efforts” requirement which obligated Trek to show good faith in promoting and marketing the LeMond Cycling brand — a requirement, the Judge noted, that was “carefully negotiated and included by the parties” in the agreement. The Judge also stated a reasonable jury could conclude from the evidence that Trek was not using its good faith ‘best efforts’ to ‘maximize sales’ of LeMond-branded bicycles”; and
Disagreed with Trek’s assertion that, because of statements by Greg LeMond expressing disappointment over Lance Armstrong’s association with Dr. Michele Ferrari, an Italian doctor believed to have provided performance-enhancing drugs to professional cyclists, Trek is entitled to summary judgment confirming its right to terminate the Sublicense Agreement.
