Eva's Bridal Ltd. v. Halanick Enterprises, Inc., 639 F.3d 788

Eva Sweis founded Eva's Bridal in Chicago; the brand expanded to family-operated shops under the same name.
Ownership passed to Said and Nancy Ghusein, who ran Eva's Bridal in Oak Lawn and licensed to relatives, including an Orland Park shop.
In Orland Park, Nayef Ghusein bought the operation for $10 and agreed to pay $75,000 annually for the right to use the Eva's Bridal name and marks.
The license expired in 2002, but Nayef and Halanick Enterprises continued operating under the Eva's Bridal name without royalty or license.
In 2007, Said and Eva's Bridal Ltd. sued Nayef and Halanick under the Lanham Act for unlawful use of the mark.
The district court dismissed the suit as a naked licensing abandonment, holding plaintiffs had no control over licensee operations or quality.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether naked licensing constitutes abandonment under Restatement theory	Ghuseins argue abandonment results from lack of licensor control, regardless of quality.	Nayef/Halanick contend no abandonment occurred since controls over quality are unnecessary here.	Abandonment found; naked license constitutes abandonment.
How much licensor control is required to avoid abandonment	Plaintiffs claim some control is unnecessary if brand quality is maintained by licensees.	Defendants argue licensor must retain some control to ensure consistent quality.	Control required to preserve brand quality was absent; this case is extreme.

Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992) (trademark function requires consistent quality protected by the mark)
Kentucky Fried Chicken Corp. v. Diversified Packaging Corp., 549 F.2d 368 (5th Cir.1977) (quality control through licensor supervision)
TMT North America, Inc. v. Magic Touch GmbH, 124 F.3d 876 (7th Cir.1997) (extent of licensor control needed to prevent abandonment)