The U.S. Supreme Court Recently Clarified What Happens to a Trademark Licensee’s Rights When a Bankruptcy Debtor Rejects a License Agreement During Chapter 11 Proceedings
In Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology LLC, 587 U. S. ____ (2019), the U.S. Supreme Court clarified what happens to the rights of a trademark licensee when a bankruptcy debtor rejects a license agreement during Chapter 11 proceedings. The Court held that a debtor/licenses rejection of a trademark license agreement does not terminate the licensee’s rights to the mark. “Rejection of a contract— any contract—in bankruptcy operates not as a rescission but as a breach,” the Court explained.
Intellectual Property under Bankruptcy Code
When a business files for protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, the trustee or the debtor-in-possession may secure court approval to “reject” any executory contract of the debtor. Under Section 365(g)(1) of U.S. bankruptcy code, that rejection “constitutes a breach of such contract.” The other party to the contract can pursue damages for breach of contract, but may not compel further performance.
The Bankruptcy Code treats some intellectual property differently. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365(n)(1), when the rejected contract is one “under which the debtor is a licensor of a right to intellectual property,” the licensee may elect to “retain its rights . . . to such intellectual property,” thereby continuing the debtor’s duty to license the intellectual property. “Intellectual property” is defined to include patents and copyrights, but not trademarks. Because it is not directly addressed in the Bankruptcy Code, the circuit courts were divided on whether the rejection of a trademark licensing agreement terminates a licensee’s rights.
Facts of Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology LLC
Mission Product Holdings, Inc. entered into a contract with Respondent Tempnology, LLC, which gave Mission a license to use Tempnology’s trademarks in connection with the distribution of certain clothing and accessories. Tempnology filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and sought to reject its agreement with Mission.
The bankruptcy court approved Tempnology’s motion to reject the Agreement under Section 365(a), subject to Mission’s election to preserve its rights to the intellectual property under Section 365(n). The bankruptcy court subsequently ruled that Mission retained its non-exclusive, worldwide license to use Tempnology’s patents post-rejection, but held that rejection of the Agreement terminated Mission’s trademark and exclusive-distribution rights.
A divided panel of the First Circuit held that Mission’s right to use Debtor’s trademarks did not survive rejection of the Agreement. The majority reasoned that it was not “possible to free a debtor from any continuing performance obligations under a trademark license even while preserving the licensee’s right to use the trademark,” stating that Tempnology would be required to “monitor and exercise control over the quality of the goods” produced by Mission to protect the “continued validity” of its trademarks.
Supreme Court’s Decision
By a vote of 8-1, the Supreme Court reversed. It held 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; it can’t rescind rights that the contract previously granted.
“A 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,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote on behalf of the Court.
Justice Kagan further explained that upon rejection the debtor “can stop performing its remaining obligations under the agreement. But the debtor cannot rescind the license already conveyed. So the licensee can continue to do whatever the license authorizes.”
In reaching its decision, the Court cited the longstanding bankruptcy rule that an estate can’t possess anything more than the debtor itself did outside bankruptcy. “So if the not-yet debtor was subject to a counterparty’s contractual right (say, to . . . use a trademark), so too is the trustee or debtor once the bankruptcy petition has been filed,” Justice Kagan wrote. “The rejection-as-breach rule . . . ensures that result.”
Key Takeaway
The Supreme Court’s decision is good news for trademark licensees. Under the Court’s ruling, when a trademark owner enters into bankruptcy and seeks to reject a trademark license, the licensee has the option to either assert damage claims as a result of the breach of the licensing agreement or to continue to use the trademark through the end of the license term.
For trademark holders, the Court’s decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology LLC may make bankruptcy less attractive because it can’t be used to free trademark owners from licensing rights that they have granted.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, David Einhorn, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-806-3364.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
SCOTUS Rules Trademark Licensee Rights Survive Bankruptcy Rejection
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The U.S. Supreme Court Recently Clarified What Happens to a Trademark Licensee’s Rights When a Bankruptcy Debtor Rejects a License Agreement During Chapter 11 Proceedings
In Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology LLC, 587 U. S. ____ (2019), the U.S. Supreme Court clarified what happens to the rights of a trademark licensee when a bankruptcy debtor rejects a license agreement during Chapter 11 proceedings. The Court held that a debtor/licenses rejection of a trademark license agreement does not terminate the licensee’s rights to the mark. “Rejection of a contract— any contract—in bankruptcy operates not as a rescission but as a breach,” the Court explained.
Intellectual Property under Bankruptcy Code
When a business files for protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, the trustee or the debtor-in-possession may secure court approval to “reject” any executory contract of the debtor. Under Section 365(g)(1) of U.S. bankruptcy code, that rejection “constitutes a breach of such contract.” The other party to the contract can pursue damages for breach of contract, but may not compel further performance.
The Bankruptcy Code treats some intellectual property differently. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365(n)(1), when the rejected contract is one “under which the debtor is a licensor of a right to intellectual property,” the licensee may elect to “retain its rights . . . to such intellectual property,” thereby continuing the debtor’s duty to license the intellectual property. “Intellectual property” is defined to include patents and copyrights, but not trademarks. Because it is not directly addressed in the Bankruptcy Code, the circuit courts were divided on whether the rejection of a trademark licensing agreement terminates a licensee’s rights.
Facts of Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology LLC
Mission Product Holdings, Inc. entered into a contract with Respondent Tempnology, LLC, which gave Mission a license to use Tempnology’s trademarks in connection with the distribution of certain clothing and accessories. Tempnology filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and sought to reject its agreement with Mission.
The bankruptcy court approved Tempnology’s motion to reject the Agreement under Section 365(a), subject to Mission’s election to preserve its rights to the intellectual property under Section 365(n). The bankruptcy court subsequently ruled that Mission retained its non-exclusive, worldwide license to use Tempnology’s patents post-rejection, but held that rejection of the Agreement terminated Mission’s trademark and exclusive-distribution rights.
A divided panel of the First Circuit held that Mission’s right to use Debtor’s trademarks did not survive rejection of the Agreement. The majority reasoned that it was not “possible to free a debtor from any continuing performance obligations under a trademark license even while preserving the licensee’s right to use the trademark,” stating that Tempnology would be required to “monitor and exercise control over the quality of the goods” produced by Mission to protect the “continued validity” of its trademarks.
Supreme Court’s Decision
By a vote of 8-1, the Supreme Court reversed. It held 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; it can’t rescind rights that the contract previously granted.
“A 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,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote on behalf of the Court.
Justice Kagan further explained that upon rejection the debtor “can stop performing its remaining obligations under the agreement. But the debtor cannot rescind the license already conveyed. So the licensee can continue to do whatever the license authorizes.”
In reaching its decision, the Court cited the longstanding bankruptcy rule that an estate can’t possess anything more than the debtor itself did outside bankruptcy. “So if the not-yet debtor was subject to a counterparty’s contractual right (say, to . . . use a trademark), so too is the trustee or debtor once the bankruptcy petition has been filed,” Justice Kagan wrote. “The rejection-as-breach rule . . . ensures that result.”
Key Takeaway
The Supreme Court’s decision is good news for trademark licensees. Under the Court’s ruling, when a trademark owner enters into bankruptcy and seeks to reject a trademark license, the licensee has the option to either assert damage claims as a result of the breach of the licensing agreement or to continue to use the trademark through the end of the license term.
For trademark holders, the Court’s decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology LLC may make bankruptcy less attractive because it can’t be used to free trademark owners from licensing rights that they have granted.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, David Einhorn, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-806-3364.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
