On Monday, May 20, 2019 the Supreme Court settled a decades-long circuit split regarding a licensee’s ongoing trademark usage rights following the rejection of a trademark license agreement under the U.S. bankruptcy code. In an eight to one decision, the Court found that “rejection breaches a contract but does not rescind it. And that means all the rights that would ordinarily survive a contract breach, including those conveyed here, remain in place.”
The U.S. Supreme Court provided much-needed clarity on the effect bankruptcy has on the licensor’s right to revoke a trademark license. On May 20, 2019, SCOTUS decided, in an 8-1 decision, that “A debtor’s rejection of an executory contract under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code has the same effect as a breach of that contract outside bankruptcy. Such an act cannot rescind rights that the contract previously granted.” Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC NKA Old Cold LLC No. 17-1657 (U.S. May 20, 2019).
A Big Answer To A Big Question. After dividing the courts for a number of years, we finally have the answer to the big question of whether rejection of a trademark license by a debtor-licensor deprives the licensee of the right to use the trademark. Here’s the question on which the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v Tempnology, LLC case:
Prior to Monday, May 20, 2019, the rights of a trademark licensee to continue to use the mark after the licensor “rejected” the license in bankruptcy remained an unresolved legal issue with licensees left scrambling. If the Chapter 11 Debtor “rejects” the license contract, then must the licensee immediately stop all sales of products bearing the mark and “get in line” with other unsecured creditors for its damages? Or, can they continue to sell products bearing the mark when the trademark owner expressed to desire to monitor the proper and effective use?
Yesterday, in Mission Product Holdings v. Tempnology LLC, the Supreme Court held that a trademark licensee may continue using a licensed trademark after its licensor files for bankruptcy and rejects the relevant license agreement. While a debtor-licensor may "reject" a trademark license agreement under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, such rejection is only a breach of the agreement and does not allow the licensor to revoke the licensee's rights.
On Monday, May 20, 2019, the United States Supreme Court issued an 8-1 decision holding that a bankrupt company’s decision to reject an existing license of its trademarks does not terminate a licensee’s right to continue using the licensed trademarks.
Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, No. 17-1657
Today, the Supreme Court held in an 8-1 decision that when a debtor, acting under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, rejects a contract licensing its trademarks, the contract is not rescinded and the debtor thus cannot revoke the trademark license.
Chapter 11 Debtor, Tempnology, LLC (“Tempnology”) is feeling the heat today, May 20, 2019, as the United States Supreme Court held that Mission Product Holdings, Inc., (“Mission”), a licensee of Tempnology’s “Coolcore” products, can continue to use Tempnology’s trademarks to sell and distribute its products in the United States. The Supreme Court’s decision resolved a significant circuit split, at least for trademark licensing agreements, as to whether Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code can shield a debtor-licensor from its licensees continued use of licensed trademarks.
The U.S. Supreme Court held today in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC that a trademark licensee may retain certain rights under a trademark licensing agreement even if the licensor enters bankruptcy and rejects the licensing agreement at issue. Relying on the language of section 365(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Supreme Court emphasized that a debtor’s rejection of an executory contract has the “same effect as a breach of that contract outside bankruptcy” and that rejection “cannot rescind rights that the contract previously granted.”
On April 23, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in fraudulent transfer litigation arising out of the 2007 leveraged buyout of the Tribune Company,1 ruled on one of the significant issues left unresolved by the US Supreme Court in its Merit Management decision last year.