In Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, 686 F.3d 372, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a debtor-licensor’s rejection of an executory trademark license does not terminate the licensee’s right to use the trademark. The decision creates a circuit-level split that may invite Supreme Court review. However, no final resolution is likely soon. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, denying a petition for a writ of certiorari in December of 2012.

Generally, license agreements are “executory contracts” in bankruptcy. Executory means performance is due from both sides. When a party to an executory contract becomes a debtor in bankruptcy, it may either reject or assume the contract. However, non-debtor parties (or “counterparties”) enjoy some protections, especially when the contract is a license agreement for intellectual property.

The basics.

Fashion industry licensees invest substantial sums in reliance on their license rights. Bankrupt licensors have been able to convince courts they can “reject” licenses and, when so doing, thereby cause licensees’ trademark rights to vaporize. Here we discuss why and what a licensee can do.

The Effect of Rejection on Trademark License Rights

What is the impact of a bankruptcy filing on the ability of a franchisee to continue utilizing the trademarks of the franchisor?  

Last week the Supreme Court refused to decide whether, when a trademark licensor files for bankruptcy relief or is placed in involuntary bankruptcy by its creditors, the licensee can keep the rights to the trademark. The Fourth Circuit had said “no” in a 1985 case so reviled that Congress enacted corrective legislation, and 27 years later, the Seventh Circuit said “yes.” Despite this circuit split, the Supreme Court refused to weigh in on the issue. As a result, trademark licensees in New York (Second Circuit), California (Ninth Circuit), and the rest of the country have no certainty.

Recent bankruptcy appellate rulings have addressed the issue of what rights a trademark licensee has after a debtor-licensor rejects its trademark license in bankruptcy.

In light of the current uncertainty surrounding the rights of trademark licensees when a debtor-licensor seeks to reject the underlying license agreements in bankruptcy, licensees may wish to consider strategies to protect their rights.

In re Exide Technologies5

In 1991, Exide Technologies sold substantially all of its industrial battery business to EnerSys Delaware, Inc. (then known as Yuasa Battery (America), Inc.).

Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC20 In the Sunbeam Products case, the Seventh Circuit held that a trademark licensee could continue to use a trademark after the license was rejected by the debtorlicensor, even though the protections of section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code do not extend to licensees of trademarks.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently ruled that a perpetual, royalty-free, and exclusive trademark licensing agreement qualified as an executory contract subject to assumption or rejection under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.  The Eighth Circuit’s ruling is seemingly at odds with a 2010 decision by the Third Circuit which found an extremely similar licensing agreement to be non-executory.  These decisions may signal a circuit split on the issue, and in any event, create uncertainty for licensees who have acquired perpetual licenses in connection