Specifically, I stated:
In other words, the claim is not that MMA Authentics did not have a right to use the mark, but instead is that it did not properly comply with its obligations under the license agreement in using the mark.
As reported here at Sherdog, it appears I was correct as the article states that Liddell has asserted claims for breach of contract, invasion of privacy, and a claim based upon MMA Authentics' alleged violations of California business laws.
According to the article, the contract claim has two components: (1) it alleges that MMA Authentics was only authorized to sell headwear and clothing under the contract and it allegedly sold "novelty" items in violation of this agreement; and (2) it alleges that MMA Authentics did not get pre-approval for the use of the Liddell marks.
The article points out that there was back-and-forth between the parties on these issues for an extended period of time prior to Liddell's recent decision to pull the trigger -- in fact, the article states that Liddell waited a almost a year and a half after termination before commencing suit.
According to the article, Liddell seeks unspecified damages (including punitive damages) and injunctive relief stopping MMA Authentics from allegedly continuing to sell items that he did not approve.
Perhaps this is just Liddell's attempt to get a more favorable deal, time will tell.
I look forward to seeing MMA Authentics' response to the complaint.