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).

An April 12, 2019 Delaware Bankruptcy Court decision in the Sports Authority Chapter 11 case (In re TSAWD Holdings, Inc.) is an important reminder for sellers of goods on properly obtaining security in the goods they sell, to insure payment from the customer.

On May 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8-1 ruling in the case of Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC. The decision resolves a circuit split, holding that a licensee may retain its right to use licensed trademarks, notwithstanding the debtor-licensor’s rejection of the contract in bankruptcy. The Supreme Court’s decision has potentially far-reaching implications.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided yesterday to uphold a licensee’s right to continue using trademarks despite the bankrupt licensor’s rejection of the underlying license agreement. As a result, bankrupt brand owners cannot use bankruptcy law to unilaterally revoke a trademark license. In Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v.

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:

On May 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme ruled a trademark licensee can continue to use the trademark after a bankrupt licensor rejects the license agreement. The case is Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC. Some lower courts had ruled that rejection of trademark license agreement terminated the licensee’s rights to use the trademark.

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that bankrupt trademark licensors cannot unilaterally rescind trademark license rights previously granted, resolving a longstanding split among the circuits and providing much needed certainty to intellectual property (IP) licensors and licensees. In fact, the International Trademark Association had dubbed this "the most significant unresolved legal issue in trademark licensing."

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.

Previously published in Bankruptcy Law News, Vol. XXIV, No.28.

Courts possess inherent authority to regulate conduct in their courtrooms and to enforce their orders. All litigants who are unsuccessful in civil litigation are disappointed. Fortunately, after they have exhausted their remedies, virtually all of them recognize the binding nature of the adverse ruling and move on. But not everyone is so sanguine and accepting. Certain litigants refuse to accept the court’s ruling, and indeed, will objectively and affirmatively refuse to abide by such decrees.