Sharon Urias, Esq.
What happens to a trademark license when the brand owner goes bankrupt? This is a question to be addressed by the Supreme Court in
Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, which is a question the International Trademark Association, who filed an amicus brief in support of the petition for certiorari, called “the most significant unresolved legal issue in trademark licensing.” The Court will seek to resolve a split in circuits as to whether a debtor-licensor can terminate a trademark license agreement by “rejection,” thereby taking back the trademark rights it licensed and precluding a licensee from using the trademark.
In the case, Tempnology, LLC had a contract with Mission Product Holdings providing it with non-exclusive licenses to certain intellectual property rights and exclusive U.S. distribution rights to certain products. In 2015, Tempnology filed bankruptcy (Chapter 11) and rejected its license agreements with Mission. The First Circuit Court of Appeals held that Mission’s trademark license and exclusive distribution rights were terminated with the bankruptcy.
Although the Bankruptcy Code allows a debtor to “reject” contracts in order to free itself from obligations (e.g. a real property lease), there is an exemption for intellectual property. The problem is that the Bankruptcy Code does not include trademarks in its definition of intellectual property. As a result, the courts are divided. In the Seventh Circuit’s decision of
Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago Manufacturing, LLC, the court held that the licensee maintained its rights in the trademarks, which were not “vaporized” by the debtor’s rejection of the licensing agreement. The First Circuit Court of Appeals, however, declined to follow Sunbeam and instead held in Mission Product Holdings that trademarks are not intellectual property within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code and the non-debtor licensee cannot continue to use the trademarks.
As it stands, the circuit split has created a great deal of commercial uncertainty because trademark rights often are granted on a long-term basis, wherein a licensee undertakes a significant financial investment in promoting and building a business around the trademarked goods or services. The Supreme Court’s docket can be found
*The information in this article is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect the current law in your jurisdiction. No information contained in this post should be construed as legal advice from Greenspoon Marder LLP or the individual author(s), nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader of this post should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in, or accessible through, this Post without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer licensed in the recipient’s state, country or other appropriate licensing jurisdiction.
About Greenspoon Marder
Greenspoon Marder LLP is committed to providing excellent client service through our cross-disciplinary, client-team approach. Our goal is to understand the challenges that our clients face, build collaborative relationships, and craft creative solutions designed and executed with long-term strategic goals in mind. Since our inception in 1981, Greenspoon Marder LLP has become a full-service, Am Law 200 and NLJ 500 ranked law firm with more than 200 attorneys. We serve Fortune 500, middle-market public and private companies, start-ups, emerging businesses, individuals and entrepreneurs across the United States. For more information, visit www.gmlaw.com.
Michelle Martinez Reyes, Chief Marketing Officer
954.333.4357 | email@example.com