Hypothetical

Hypothetical: Perfume manufacturer, Acme, Inc., and Keely Kordoshian, a celebrity and fashion model, entered into a written Trademark License Agreement that provides for Kordoshian to license the use of her name (the "Trademark") to Acme for its use in marketing and selling its perfumes (the "Products") in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut (the "Territory") for two years (the "Term"). Relevant provisions of the Trademark License Agreement follow (as we discussed in the live session, assume the provisions that follow are included in the written contract Kordoshian and Acme signed):

"Agreement" means this Trademark License Agreement, as amended from time to time.

2.1 Grant of License. By signing this Agreement, Kordoshion grants a license in the Trademark to Acme to manufacture, market, and distribute the Products in the Territory during the Term.

9.1 Integration. This Agreement constitutes the final, exclusive agreement between the parties on the matters contained in this Agreement. All earlier and contemporaneous negotiations and agreements between the parties on the matters contained in this Agreement are expressly merged into and superseded by this Agreement.

Description of dispute: During the Term, Kordoshian grants a separate license for the use of her name to one of Acme's competitors. This license allows the competitor to market perfume products using Kordoshian's name in New York. Acme sues Kordoshian and argues that she breached the Trademark License Agreement by granting a license in New York to its competitor because Acme has an exclusive license to use the trademark in New York. Acme wants to introduce evidence of an email Kordoshian sent to Acme three days before signing the Trademark License Agreement, in which Kordoshian states that she "is super stoked that Acme will have the absolutely only and exclusive license to use her name in NY, NJ, and CT."

Question : would a court allow Acme to introduce evidence of the email to prove that Kordoshian granted it an exclusive license ?