Exhibit 17-1 Accuraphoto USA (AUSA) owns the "Accuraphoto" trademark in the United States. AUSA produces the "SureShot" camera, which is known to consumers as a moderately priced quality product. AUSA entered into a contract with Honshu Photographic,

Question

Inc (HPI), a Japanese corporation. Pursuant to the terms of the contract, HPI was permitted to manufacture and market "SureShot" cameras utilizing the "Accuraphoto" trademark in return for payment of royalties based upon a percentage of HPI's sales. After producing "SureShot" cameras for a short time at its Japanese facility, HPI moved production to its facility in the Philippines in order to reduce labor costs. The cameras produced at the Philippine facility utilized the "Accuraphoto" trademark but were marketed under the name "SharpShot." Additionally, these cameras contained improved electronic features incorporated into the product by HPI engineers. Despite the inclusion of these improvements, "SharpShot" cameras proved to be of inferior quality. Furthermore, "SharpShot" cameras have begun to show up on the shelves of U.S. discount retailers such as K-Mart and Wal-Mart. Additionally, several "SharpShot" cameras have been sent by American consumers to AUSA's American facilities for repair. Finally, HPI has refused to share access with AUSA to the electronic improvements incorporated into the "SharpShot" on the basis that they are confidential proprietary information. Refer to Exhibit 17-1. What terms could AUSA have included in its contract with HPI that could have avoided this legal morass?

Answer 1

AUSA should have included the following terms in its contract with HPI: a geographic limitation upon the licensee's manufacturing and marketing operations; a customer limitation on licensee's marketing operations; a confidentiality term restricting access to need to know employees; and a grant back provision granting title to the improvements back to the licensor without payment of compensation.