Summary Calendar L. D. BRINKMAN; LDB CORPORATION v. Beaulieu of America, Inc; Beaulieu Group, LLC

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 22, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-51321
Summary Calendar
L. D. BRINKMAN; LDB CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
BEAULIEU OF AMERICA, INC; BEAULIEU GROUP, LLC,
Defendants - Appellees.
______________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas, San Antonio
SA-02-CV-268
______________________________________________
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of
appellees, Beaulieu of America, Inc. and Beaulieu Group L.L.C. The
summary judgment denied injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’
fees sought by appellants, L.D. Brinkman and LDB Corporation.
In essence, the appellants sought relief for the use of

-- 1 of 2 --

2
trademarks. But the summary judgment establishes without dispute
that the rights to the trademarks which appellants claim they own
were transferred to appellees’ predecessors in a stock purchase
agreement that is not in dispute. Appellants nonetheless seek
reversal of the district court on their purported termination of
license agreements, but it is undisputed and the summary judgment
evidence clearly establishes that the license agreements were never
executed by appellees’ predecessors. Appellant received millions
of dollars for the sale of assets and the rights to the trademarks
at issue. Fourteen years later after having never asserted any
control of use of the transferred trademarks, they seek relief
based on license agreements that have never been executed and which
are unenforceable against the appellees. The judgment of the
district court is affirmed based on the unassailable analysis of
Judge Prado as contained in its order dated October 29, 2002. The
appeal brought herein is frivolous and the court grants appellees’
motion for double costs brought pursuant to Rule 38.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --