Quam v. Nelson

Quam v. Nelson

There is no sufficient admissible evidence in the record to demonstrate that Quam had the right to control what happened with VTA. Quam argues that he had joint proprietorship or control of VTA because his name was used on the application for a certificate of assumed name that was filed in Minnesota for Macro Solutions. Although the record reveals that the assumed name was associated with VTA? Van Tassel states that he applied to register the Macro Solutions assumed name/service mark in Minnesota and Wisconsin at the end of 1994 so that he could deduct the registration expense in the same year. When Van Tassel filled out a certificate of assumed name he stated that his principal place of business was in Wisconsin. Van Tassel's application also stated that he would be conducting business in Minnesota under the name of Macro Solutions. Because Quam was selling on behalf of VTA in Minnesota? Van Tassel included Quam's name and address on the application. The application was submitted to the state of Minnesota on or about December 30? 1994.

The Minnesota application was returned with a rejection letter stating the reason for rejection was that the business address identified had to be located in Minnesota. Van Tassel claims that since Quam was his sales representative in Minnesota? he would use Quam's address as VTA's principal place of business on the Minnesota certificate of assumed name application. After Van Tassel made the changes? the application was accepted.

There is no substantial admissible evidence illustrating that Quam was involved with the filing of the certificate of assumed name application. Additionally? Quam does not provide substantial evidence that he had control over VTA or that VTA was being held out to the public as a joint proprietorship.

Quam claims that it was his understanding that ...