Zetor North America, Inc. v. Ridgeway Enterprises, 861 F.3d 807

Zetor held a U.S. license for the Zetor trademark and promotional materials; Ridgeway sold tractor parts but was not an authorized Zetor dealer.
Zetor alleged Ridgeway advertised and sold parts using the Zetor mark and promotional materials in a way that caused consumer confusion and infringed Zetor’s copyrights.
In 2008 the parties settled a prior dispute by agreement that included releases of pre-Agreement claims and an arbitration provision for controversies "arising out of or relating to this Agreement." Ridgeway also agreed to cease certain uses of the Zetor mark.
In 2014 Zetor sued Ridgeway for new trademark infringement, dilution, unfair competition, copyright infringement, deceptive trade practices, and related state-law claims based on post-2008 conduct.
Ridgeway raised arbitration as an affirmative defense but did not move to compel arbitration until after preliminary discovery and case-management steps; the district court denied the motion, finding the arbitration clause inapplicable to Zetor’s new claims.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding Zetor’s claims were independent of the 2008 Agreement and therefore not subject to its arbitration clause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2008 settlement’s arbitration clause compels arbitration of Zetor’s 2014 claims	Zetor: claims arise from new trademark/copyright violations independent of the Agreement and are not governed by it	Ridgeway: current claims “arise out of or relate to” the Agreement and therefore fall within the arbitration clause	Held: Arbitration clause did not apply; Zetor’s claims are independent, post‑Agreement conduct not covered by releases or the contract terms
Whether plaintiff waived arbitration or whether the Agreement is void for fraudulent inducement	Zetor: (on appeal) Ridgeway waived arbitration by delaying its motion; also district court did not resolve fraudulent‑inducement defense	Ridgeway: raised arbitration defense and relied on clause to compel arbitration	Held: Court did not decide waiver or fraudulent‑inducement issues (district court did not rule; appellate court declines to consider these alternative arguments in first instance)

AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (FAA reflects a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration but arbitration is contractual)
Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79 (Sup. Ct. 2002) (arbitration is a matter of contract; parties cannot be compelled to arbitrate disputes they did not agree to submit)
Unison Co. v. Juhl Energy Dev., Inc., 789 F.3d 816 (8th Cir. 2015) (broad arbitration clauses send claims to arbitration if allegations touch matters covered by the clause)
3M Co. v. Amtex Sec., Inc., 542 F.3d 1193 (8th Cir. 2008) (upholding arbitration where claims fell squarely within the contract terms and scope)
Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (Sup. Ct. 1985) (arbitration clauses covering claims "arising out of" or "relating to" an agreement are broad)