A Cook County jury has awarded $7 million to Playboy Enterprises in a breach-of-contract lawsuit that first alleged Playboy deceptively secured new licensing agreements before its current agreements expired.

The jury’s award came Friday on Playboy’s counterclaims alleging Playboy performed its duties under its agreements with plaintiffs Play Beverages LLC and CirTran Beverage Corp., whose consistent under-performance of Playboy Energy Drink sales, failure to pay royalties and continued unauthorized sales of a Playboy brand product justified its decision to let the agreements expire in 2012.

In November 2006, Playboy and Play Beverages entered into a license agreement that granted Play Beverages international distribution rights. The agreement was effective for 20 years with a renewal option at the end of every fifth year. Its initial term was to expire at the end of March 2012.

CirTran contracted with Play Beverages for certain manufacturing and distribution rights in August 2007.

At the time their lawsuit was filed, the companies alleged to have launched the Playboy energy drink in more than 30 countries and obtained distributors for more than 80 countries.

And despite Play Beverages’ “significant strides” in product development and promotion, the lawsuit alleged, the company failed to meet the minimum sales target outlined in its license agreement.

Despite the shortcoming, the distributors alleged, Playboy represented that it wouldn’t invoke the agreement’s sales provision because of Play Beverage’s market development.

The lawsuit also alleged Playboy represented its intention to renew its licensing agreement with Play Beverages, accept quarterly royalty payments and never invoke the agreement’s sales provision.

The distributors alleged new Playboy management took over in 2011 and was less cooperative regarding approval for use of the brand’s name and rabbit-head trademark at marketing events and negotiating royalty payment arrangements.

They alleged the change in professional tone stemmed from Playboy’s undisclosed predetermination to let its license agreement with Play Beverages expire despite previous representations of the opposite.

According to its lawsuit, Playboy had begun working with other individuals who were under contract with CirTran to “cut plaintiffs out of their energy drink distribution network” in the spring of 2011.

Playboy executives had “committed to a course of action” that would in effect replace Play Beverages as the company’s exclusive licensee by May 2011 and authorized a different distributor than Play Beverages to hold itself out as the entity in charge of Playboy’s energy drink license, the lawsuit alleged.

Among other things, Play Beverages and CirTran’s lawsuit alleged a breach of contract, a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference with a contract, promissory estoppel and civil conspiracy.

But Playboy countersued, alleging the companies were asking for relief pursuant to a binding agreement under which they never fully performed.

The company alleged it encountered several issues with the counter defendants — including fielded complaints from distributors, vendors and promoters from all over the world.

Playboy also alleged Play Beverages failed to sell any energy drinks outside of the U.S. by April 2007 as outlined in the agreement, failed to take promotion and distribution opportunities at marketing events and failed to make required payments to several distributors.

Play Beverages also used promotional materials on a Hungarian website to promote the energy drink without required approval, Playboy alleged. And around June 2013, the company alleged, Play Beverages and CirTran entered into a relationship with a company to engage in mass distribution of Playboy’s energy drink despite its license agreement having expired.

The companies have also been named in several lawsuits stemming from missed payments or alleged contract breaches, Playboy contended. And in late April 2011, Playboy alleged, several creditors filed a bankruptcy petition against Play Beverages in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Utah.

Among other things, Playboy’s counterclaims allege breach of contract, trademark infringement, false advertising and a Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act violation.

After a trial before Circuit Judge Raymond W. Mitchell that began Sept. 28, the jury found in favor of Playboy on all of Play Beverages and CirTran’s counts against it.

On Playboy’s counterclaims, the jury awarded the company $1.6 million for breach of contract against Play Beverages, $5 million for trademark infringement against both counter defendants and $400,000 for trademark counterfeiting against both counter defendants.

Attorney Peter Ross of Browne, George, Ross LLP in Los Angeles represented Playboy with Miller, Shakman & Beem LLP partner Edward W. Feldman.

“The jury verdict makes clear that no one other than Playboy has legitimate rights to use the Playboy brand in connection with energy drink products,” the company said in a prepared release. “Playboy will strongly enforce its favorable judgment against PlayBev/CirTran to stop Iehab Hawatmeh's companies from engaging in infringing and counterfeiting activities.”

Lead attorney Steven H. Bergman of Richards, Brandt, Miller, Nelson in Salt Lake City represented Play Beverages and CirTran with firm colleagues Lynn S. Davies and Kristina H. Ruedas.

Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP managing partner Todd C. Jacobs and firm associate Patrick J. Castle also represented the Play Beverages and CirTran.

Bergman said his clients are evaluating the verdict, considering appellate options and looking at post-trial motions.

The case is Play Beverages LLC, et al. v. Playboy Enterprises International, et al., 12 L 12181.