Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In In re Tempnology, the First Circuit held that the debtor’s rejection of a trademark license strips the nondebtor licensee of any right to continue to use the trademarks. In so doing, the court takes the same approach as the Fourth Circuit and rejects the approaches advocated by the Third and Seventh Circuits.
In In re Tempnology, LLC, 879 F.3d 389 (1st Cir. 2018), the First Circuit held (in a 2-1 decision) that the debtor’s rejection of a trademark license strips the nondebtor licensee of any right to continue to use the trademarks. In so doing, the court takes the same approach as the Fourth Circuit in its controversial Lubrizol decision and rejects the approaches advocated by Judge Ambro of the Third Circuit in his Exide concurrence and the Seventh Circuit in its Sunbeam decision. Tempnology thus deepens the circuit split between the Fourth and Seventh Circuits over this issue, and highlights the general confusion that still remains 40 years after enactment of the present Bankruptcy Code over the effect of rejection.
*May exclude premium content
By Tinamarie Feil
We all have experienced technology’s dramatic effect on bankruptcy practice, particularly in the electronic filing of documents and in the electronic communication and sharing of information among parties.
By Michael L. Cook
The appellate courts have been busy explaining or clarifying preference and fraudulent transfer law. Although novices may think the Bankruptcy Code (Code) is clear on its face, imaginative counsel have found gaps in the statute and generated rafts of litigation since the Code’s enactment in 1979. Recent appellate decisions, summarized below, show that courts are still making new law or refining prior case law.
By Alfred S. Lurey
A recent bankruptcy case from the District of Delaware underscores the need for a trademark licensor to be alert to filings made in its licensee’s bankruptcy case that may require prompt action by the licensor to protect its valuable rights under a license agreement.
By Theresa A. Driscoll
The Supreme Court concluded that because the 2017 amendments exempted debtors located in two States, it was not “uniform” as it did not apply equally to all debtors regardless of where they were situated and, therefore, the statute was unconstitutional.