In D.L. Anderson’s Lakeside Leisure Co. v. Anderson, 2008 WI 126 (filed 2 Dec. 2008) the Wisconsin Supreme Court addressed the interplay between tradenames, noncompete agreeements, and tort law. Anderson involved an asset purchase agreement whereby Seller agreed to sell certain assets, including seller’s tradename, to buyer and seller agreed to a noncompete agreement with buyer. The lower court found that the Seller breached the noncompete agreement and infringed on the tradename that Buyer purchased. On appeal, the Seller argued that the noncompete agreement restricted the tradename rights the buyer purchased; thus, any action against defendant must be controlled by contract law, not tort law. The Buyer argued that the noncompetition clause prohibited other commercial use of the tradename not covered by tradename protection. The Supreme Court found that it was not reasonable to read the noncompetition clause language as Seller wants; “to do so would mean that the expiration of the noncompetition clause after seven years would render the tradename purchase meaningless” and that “the tradename infringement claim arises under the contract only in the sense that the contract is the instrument by which the tradename was purchased. A separate tort may be perpetrated once the tradename belongs to the purchaser.”