Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Debtors Cannot Assume or Assign Trademark License Without Licensor's Consent
Trademarks serve as symbols of good will and are a valuable asset of the business associated with the mark. Not surprisingly, trademark licenses typically require the licensor's consent for assignments, because licensors want the right to pass on the abilities of new potential licensees. In the event of bankruptcy filing by the licensee, the contractual restriction on assignment is ordinarily unenforceable. See 11 U.S.C. ' 365(f)(1). Bankruptcy Code ' 365(c)(1), however, provides an exception to this general rule: a debtor may not 'assume or assign' any executory contract without consent of the non-debtor if 'applicable law' provides that the non-debtor can refuse to accept performance from a third party.
The district court in Blanks v. N.C.P. Marketing Group, Inc. (In re N.C.P. Marketing Group, Inc.), 2005 WL 3253268 (D. Nev. Nov. 21, 2005) held that a trademark license is 'personal and non-assignable' under applicable trademark law, and cannot be assumed or assigned by the Chapter 11 debtor licensee without the licensor's consent. Affirming the bankruptcy court, the district court said that it was ruling on a matter of 'first impression' in the bankruptcy context. The ruling is consistent, however, with non-bankruptcy trademark law. See, eg, Miller v. Glenn Miller Prods., 318 F. Supp. 2d 923, 938 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (held, non-exclusive trademark licensee cannot sublicense without consent of original licensor); Tap Publ'n, Inc. v. Chinese Yellow Pages (New York) Inc., 925 F. Supp. 212, 218 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (held, exclusive trademark license was personal to licensee and not assignable without licensor's consent). We review here fundamental principles of trademark law to show why trademark licenses are non-assignable (and, in some circuits, non-assumable) by licensees absent licensor consent.
The Nature of Trademarks
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?