United States: Supreme Court Holds That Trademark Licensor's Rejection Does Not Rescind Or Terminate License

On May 20, 2019, in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 587 U.S. ---, 139 S. Ct. 1652 (2019), the Supreme Court resolved a split among the circuits, holding that a licensor's rejection of a trademark license in bankruptcy constitutes a prepetition breach, but does not terminate the license. Focusing on the language of the Bankruptcy Code and the common law of contracts, the decision reversed a decision of the First Circuit that had held that the licensor's rejection terminated all the licensee's rights, thereby helping to eliminate continuing confusion in the lower courts about the effect of contract rejection and placing the treatment of trademarks on a similar footing to the treatment of other intellectual property under Section 365.

The Facts

Tempnology, LLC ("Tempnology," or the "Debtor-Licensor") manufactured clothing and accessories under the brand name "Coolcore." In 2012, it granted Mission Product Holdings, Inc. ("Mission" or the "Licensee") an exclusive license to distribute Coolcore products in the United States and a nonexclusive license to use the Coolcore trademarks worldwide. Three years later, Tempnology filed for bankruptcy, where it sought to reject the license agreement under Section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. After the Bankruptcy Court approved the rejection, Tempnology sought and obtained a declaration from the Bankruptcy Court that rejection terminated Mission's right to use the trademarks.

The First Circuit ultimately upheld the Bankruptcy Court's conclusion. It noted that Section 365 contained provisions that expressly preserved the rights of lessees, real estate vendees and non-trademark intellectual property licensees in similar circumstances. The negative inference from these provisions, it held, was that trademark licensees enjoy no such protection. This result, it reasoned, was consistent with the purpose of contract rejection. If a licensee could continue using a trademark post-rejection, the licensor would need to continue monitoring the marks and, thus, be deprived of at least some of the benefit of rejection.

The Opinion

After concluding that the expiration of the license during the appellate process did not moot the appeal, Justice Elena Kagan, writing for an 8-1 majority, turned to the substantive effect of a debtor-licensor's rejection of a license under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. Adopting the approach taken by the Seventh Circuit, she focused on the language of the Bankruptcy Code and the common law of contracts.1Section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a trustee or a debtor in possession, with court approval, to "assume or reject any executory contract." Section 365(g), in turn, specifies that "rejection of an executory contract . . . constitutes a breach of such contract." Because the Bankruptcy Code did not define the term "breach," the Supreme Court looked to non-bankruptcy contract law to assess its meaning. Under generic contract law, a breach grants the non-breaching party the choice either to continue performance and seek damages or to stop further performance. In either case, the election belongs to the non-breaching party; the breaching party had no ability to rescind the contract based on its own violation.

Returning to bankruptcy law, the Supreme Court explained that a debtor's estate "cannot possess anything more that the debtor itself did outside bankruptcy." 139 S. Ct. at 1663. Accordingly, because the Bankruptcy Code specifies that the debtor-licensor's rejection of a license was a "breach," that rejection could not terminate the license. Instead, rejection allowed the licensee to elect whether to retain its rights in the license or treat the contract as terminated. To treat rejection as rescission or termination would allow the debtor unilaterally to strip the licensee of its rights — a power the debtor did not possess outside of bankruptcy. Such a construction would also effectively create a new form of avoidance action, under Section 365 rather than Article 5 of the Bankruptcy Code, that was not subject to the same requirements and limitations as the claims expressly created by that Article.

The Supreme Court also refused to find a negative inference from other provisions of Section 365 that permitted rejection to be construed as rescinding or terminating the contract. Section 365(n) provides that a non-debtor licensee of intellectual property — not including trademarks — whose license is rejected may elect to "retain its rights" or "treat such contract as terminated." See 11 U.S.C. § 365(n)(1)(A),(B). Other subsections grant lessees and real estate purchasers a similar election. See id. §§ 365(h) (rejection by debtor-lessor) and (i) (rejection by debtor seller of real property or timeshare). Tempnology argued that the necessary implication of these provisions was that such an election was not available where other types of contracts were rejected, but the Court disagreed. The plain language of Section 365(g) required rejection to be treated as a breach regardless of the subject matter of the relevant contract; the asserted "negative inference" therefore could not support granting rejection any different or greater effect. In addition, the Court found no negative inference was warranted. The provisions of Section 365 had evolved over half a century to address specific situations and court decisions. The resulting "mash-up" of provisions, the Court held, did not suggest an intent to vary the effect of rejection on specific types of contracts but, if anything, reinforced the "general rule that contractual rights survive rejection." 139 S. Ct. at 1664. The Court also rejected the contention that unique features of trademark law required a different result. The language of Sections 365(a) and (g) was phrased generally, without reference to the policies of trademark. To allow trademark principles to control their interpretation would "allow the tail to wag the Doberman." Id. at 1665.

Justice Sotomayor joined the majority opinion in full but concurred separately to stress two points. First, she noted the majority decision did not hold that every trademark licensee necessarily has the right to continue using licensed marks post-rejection, and that the specific terms of a license could impact the effect of rejection under applicable non-bankruptcy law. Second, the Supreme Court's holding confirms that trademark licensees' post-rejection rights and remedies are different than other types of intellectual property rights (such as copyrights and patents) under Section 365(n), which leaves open a path for Congress to legislate comparable rights for trademark licenses if it so chooses. Justice Gorsuch dissented on the ground that the appeal should have been dismissed as moot.

Looking Ahead

The Supreme Court's decision clarifies the impact of a debtor-licensor's rejection of a license. By adopting the Seventh Circuit's approach, the Court has confirmed that rejection of a licensing agreement does not "vaporize" a licensee's rights under that agreement, but instead gives the debtor's counterparty the right to choose whether to retain its rights or terminate the contract. Under this decision, a debtor-licensor will need to continue monitoring its trademarks under rejected licenses. But if a debtor is unable to do so because of its financial condition, the licensee may see the value of the marks decline. On the other hand, licensors, particularly economically distressed licensors, may find the Supreme Court's ruling useful, as licensees may be more willing to bargain with them because certain of the licensee's rights can survive rejection.

Importantly, the Court's ruling does not appear to be limited to rejection of licenses or trademark agreements. The Court premised its reasoning on general contract principles and, in fact, explicitly rejected an argument that trademark policy should control the outcome of the case. Future decisions will consider whether the holding has rendered Sections 365(h), (i) and (n) superfluous, or whether non-trademark intellectual property licensees, lessees and real estate vendees retain some different or additional rights upon rejection. Similarly, as the concurrence suggests, courts will no doubt consider how individual contract provisions change the impact of contract rejection.


1 See Sunbeam Prods., Inc. v. Chicago Am. Mfg., LLC, 686 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. 2012).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions