In February, following oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, we wrote about the hugely important trademark law issue presented by this case, namely: If a bankrupt trademark licensor “rejects” an executory trademark license agreement, does that bankruptcy action terminate the licensee’s right to continue using the licensed trademark for the remaining term of the agreement?

HIGHLIGHTS:

The Supreme Court’s Decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology

Many Chapter 11 debtors have reorganization plans that reject contracts in droves and they never look back. Why? Rejection is part of the debtor’s “fresh start”. A debtor “monetizes” its old contracts into prepetition claims, often paying only cents on the dollar in damages. But where does that leave counterparties? If that contract was a trademark license, the licensee might be in the catbird seat.

Trademark licensors and licensees, as well as their stakeholders (including lenders), should heed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC n/k/a Old Cold, LLC, No. 17-1657. The Justices resolved a long-standing question arising from the intersection of bankruptcy and trademark law: whether a debtor/licensor’s rejection of a trademark license terminates the licensee’s right to use a trademark after rejection.

Trademark licensors and licensees, as well as their stakeholders (including lenders), should heed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC n/k/a Old Cold, LLC, No. 17-1657. The Justices resolved a long-standing question arising from the intersection of bankruptcy and trademark law: whether a debtor/licensor’s rejection of a trademark license terminates the licensee’s right to use a trademark after rejection.

In an 8-1decision issued on May 20, the Supreme Court held that rejection of an executory trademark license agreement in a bankruptcy of the licensor is merely a breach, and not a termination or rescission, of the agreement. The licensee retains whatever rights it would have had upon a breach of the agreement prior to bankruptcy and can continue to use the trademarks pursuant to its contractual rights under applicable law. Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 587 U.S. ___, No. 17-1657 (May 20, 2019).

Background

On May 20, 2019, an 8-1 majority of the United States Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy debtor’s rejection of a trademark license agreement does not constitute a rescission of the license under the Bankruptcy Code. This resolved a split among federal circuit courts previously addressing the issue. Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, No. 17-1657 (May 20, 2019).

The US Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision authored by Justice Kagan, reversed a decision of the First Circuit and held that the rejection of a trademark license agreement under Bankruptcy Code Section 365 (11 U.S.C. § 365) constitutes a breach of the license agreement that has the same effect as a breach outside bankruptcy. Therefore, the licensor’s rejection of the license agreement does not rescind or terminate the licensee’s rights under the license agreement, including the right to continue using the mark. Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, Case No.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc., v. Tempnology, LLC  clarifies that a debtor-licensor’s rejection of a trademark license under § 365(a)  of the Bankruptcy Code is treated as a breach, and not as a rescission, of that license under § 365(g).  The Court held that if a licensee’s right to use the trademark would survive a breach outside of bankruptcy, that same right survives a rejection in bankruptcy.

On May 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 587 U.S. ___, that a debtor’s ability to reject executory contracts under Section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code does not permit the debtor to rescind trademark licenses. In concluding that trademark licensees cannot unilaterally be deprived of their rights to use a debtor’s mark, the Court resolved a long-standing circuit split that the International Trademark Association had referred to as “the most significant unresolved legal issue in trademark licensing.”