Pro Golf, a U.S. company, manufactured and sold golf equipment under the brand name "First Flight," which had been registered in the United States and certain other foreign countries. Pro Golf negotiated with Wynn to act as its foreign sales representative in Japan. Wynn incorporated First Flight Associates, Inc. (FFA) under Japanese law for the purposes of selling Pro Golfs products there. The parties then entered into an informal trademark agreement, evidenced only by a letter from Pro Golf s president to FAA, permitting FAA to use Pro Golf's "First Flight" trademark
on "soft goods" such as golf bags and clothing, in return for a royalty. There were no restrictions on sub-licensing. FFA attempted to sub-license the trademark to another Japanese company, Teito, for a royalty much larger than that paid to Pro Golf. When Pro Golf objected, the company learned that its attempt to register the trademark in Japan had not been completely successful, but that third parties had obtained the right to use the "First Flight" trademark in Japan in marketing soft goods. Pro Golf terminated the agency agreement with Wynn and FFA, and FFA brought this action for breach of contract. What is the result? Do you agree with Pro Golf's strategy for entering the Japanese market? What advice would you have given Pro Golf on entering the Japanese market? First Flight Associates v. Professional Golf Co., Inc. 527 F. $2 \mathrm{~d} 931$ (6th Cir. 1975)