MindGames, Inc. v. Western Publishing
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
218 F.3d 652 (2000)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
MindGames (plaintiff) was the manufacturer of a board game called Clever Endeavor. In 1990, it licensed the game to Western Publishing Company, Inc. (Western) (defendant) in a contract that required Western to pay a 15 percent royalty on all games it sold. The contract was to last until January 1993, and could be extended for another year if Western paid MindGames at least $1.5 million either as part of its royalty payments or otherwise. Beyond that, the contract could be renewed in subsequent years if Western paid an annual renewal fee of $300,000. In the first year of the contract, Western paid $600,000 in royalties and a total of 195,000 copies of the game were sold. After that, sales started to decline. The relationship and contract between the companies continued until January 31, 1994 and the companies officially split up in February 1994. However, Western did not pay anything after its initial $600,000 payment. MindGames brought suit, seeking, among other things, lost royalties in the amount of $40 million that MindGames claimed it would have earned if Western had lived up to the terms of the contract, including requirements that Western effectively market the game. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Western. MindGames appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Posner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
