As the 95th Tour de France approaches, many Americans may choose to ignore the year's premier cycling event in the wake of Lance Armstrong trading in his bike for running shoes and Floyd Landis trading in his yellow jersey for a two-year ban for doping. On the legal front, it may be more interesting to watch two of cycling's heavyweights, Greg LeMond and Trek Bicycle Corporation, go spoke-to-spoke in a battle arising out of a licensing arrangement first entered into over a decade ago.

In the summer of 1995, LeMond, three-time Tour de France champion and the first American to win the event, entered into the licensing agreement with Trek, creating biking's newest power couple. The most recognizable American cyclist in the world lent his name and brand to one of the most well-known bicycle manufacturers in the world. The partnership appears to have been successful until the chain came off in 2001 when LeMond began making public statements about doping in the sport of cycling.

In his complaint filed in March 2008 in Minnesota state court against Trek, LeMond alleges that Trek breached the licensing agreement by failing to use "best efforts" to promote the LeMond brand. LeMond seeks specific performance and an award of lost business revenue. Specifically and in great detail, the complaint alleges that commencing in 2001, Trek sought to suppress LeMond's comments about doping in cycling.

In April, Trek responded by filing its own complaint against LeMond Cycling in the Western District of Wisconsin. The Trek complaint asks the federal court to declare, among other things, that Trek had complied with the "best efforts" provision of its agreement with LeMond Cycling or, alternatively, that the "best efforts" provision is indefinite and therefore unenforceable, and that LeMond failed to render his services in a "professional and conscientious manner." According to Trek's complaint, LeMond breached that obligation when he went public with his view that performance enhancing drugs were severely damaging the sport of cycling and made a number of publicly disparaging comments (repeated in 2004) regarding Trek's newest spokesperson and golden boy, Lance Armstrong, and implied a link between Armstrong and the use of such drugs.

The LeMondTrek dispute will require the court to interpret the provision of the license agreement that requires LeMond to render his services in a "professional and conscientious" manner. The respective complaints place directly on the table the propriety of LeMond's public statements concerning doping in cyling in general and Lance Armstrong in particular. The LeMond Complaint suggests that it was LeMond's duty to speak out against doping in the sport and that, throughout the term of the agreement, LeMond was in full compliance with its terms. Conversely, Trek will seek to demonstrate that LeMond failed to act in the agreed upon manner because his comments about doping in the sport and his disparaging remarks about Armstrong adversely impacted the LeMond brand and the entire Trek image.

To support its perspective, Trek's Complaint includes a number of customer e-mails, including one in which a customer purportedly wrote:

I recently purchased a LeMond Bike and am having an unusual problem. When I place it in the garage next to my Specialized and Trek bicycles it begins to whine and complain that the other bikes are cheaters and that it is the only true American Champion. . . . Please have [LeMond apologize] publicly so I can bring the bike in to watch it on TV. I suppose this is not covered under warranty.

It appears that the final stage of the once promising LeMondTrek partnership is nigh. Over 20 years ago, LeMond inspired millions by winning the Tour de France with 37 shotgun pellets still remaining in his body from a hunting accident. His more recent attempt to separate himself from the pack of world-class cyclists who have been caught up in the doping scandal may, at least from a financial perspective, end less successfully.

www.proskauer.com

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.