Business Law

Business Law News 2019, Issue 4

2019 Bankruptcy Truisms: "Rejection" of an Executory Contract Means "Breach," and Not "Rescission," and a Trademark Is Not a Type of Intellectual Property

Sonia Singh and Zev Shechtman

Sonia Singh is an associate at Danning, Gill, Israel & Krasnoff, a boutique Los Angeles law firm specializing in business bankruptcy, insolvency and restructuring.

Zev Shechtman is a partner at Danning, Gill, Israel & Krasnoff, a boutique Los Angeles law firm specializing in business bankruptcy, insolvency and restructuring.

The Supreme Court recently held, in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC,1 that a debtor-licensor’s choice in bankruptcy to reject an executory trademark licensing agreement does not necessarily deprive the non-debtor licensee of its rights to use the trademark moving forward. The Supreme Court determined that the licensor’s choice to reject an executory contract under 11 U.S.C. § 365(a) functions as a breach of contract and has the same effect as a breach outside of bankruptcy, instead of unwinding the rejected contract as if it never existed. Specifically, the Supreme Court found that Mission Product Holdings, Inc.’s ("MPH") right to use the trademark "Coolcore," which was granted to it by Tempnology, LLC ("Tempnology") pursuant to a nonexclusive license, was not necessarily disturbed by Tempnology’s rejection of the license in its bankruptcy proceeding.

Join CLA to access this page

Join

Log in

Forgot Password

Enter the email associated with you account. You will then receive a link in your inbox to reset your password.

Personal Information

Select Section(s)

CLA Membership is $95 and includes one section. Additional sections are $95 each.

Payment