Apparently, until last November, no court had been called upon to resolve whether a trademark licensee in bankruptcy can assume, or assume and assign, a non-exclusive trademark license without the trademark owner’s consent.
The decision. We got the first answer to that question in a case called In re: N.C.P. Marketing Group, Inc., 337 B.R. 230 (D.Nev. 2005), when the U.S. District Court in Nevada held that trademark licenses are personal and nonassignable, absent a provision in the trademark license to the contrary. Click here for a copy of the N.C.P Marketing Group decision. In reaching its conclusion, the court held that under the Lanham Act, the federal trademark statute, a trademark owner has a right and duty to control the quality of goods sold under the mark:
Because the owner of the trademark has an interest in the party to whom the trademark is assigned so that it can maintain the good will, quality, and value of its products and thereby its trademark, trademark rights are personal to the assignee and not freely assignable to a third party.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (which includes Nevada, California, and other western states) had previously interpreted the key Bankruptcy Code provision involved, Section 365(c)(1), to prevent a debtor from assuming an agreement when it does not have the right to assign it. (For a discussion about how bankruptcy can affect intellectual property licenses, including the impact of this earlier Ninth Circuit case, you may want to read my earlier post on the topic.)
Building on this Ninth Circuit law, the trademark owner in the N.C.P. Marketing Group case argued that under trademark law the debtor could neither assume nor assign the non-exclusive trademark license at issue. The district court agreed, holding that the bankruptcy court correctly granted the trademark owner’s motion to compel the debtor to reject the trademark license, forcing the debtor to give up its license rights.
Good news for trademark owners. The decision is good news for trademark owners. Many have have long worried that if a licensee files bankruptcy it might be able to use the Bankruptcy Code’s general power to assume and assign executory contracts to assign trademark licenses to third parties over the trademark owner’s objection. The N.C.P. Marketing Group decision extends to trademark owners protections already recognized by many courts for patent and copyright holders. The case does not address whether the same rule would apply to exclusive trademark licenses, but given the trademark owner’s similar rights and duties to control the quality of goods sold under a licensed mark, the result could be the same.
Bad news for debtor licensees. The decision, of course, is bad news for trademark licensees that file bankruptcy. If the decision is followed by other courts, trademark licensees in bankruptcy will be unable to assign their rights to third parties or even to keep those rights for themselves without the trademark owner’s consent. The value of these debtors, and their ability to repay creditors, could suffer as well.
On appeal. The district court’s decision may not be the last word. The debtor has appealed to the Ninth Circuit, although a ruling could be a number of months away. I will report on the Ninth Circuit’s decision when it comes down. In the meantime, this is only one district court decision, applying Ninth Circuit law, so its full impact has yet to be determined.
Just for kicks. Finally, for those interested, the trademarks involve the Billy Blanks® Tae Bo® fitness program. At least until the Ninth Circuit rules on appeal, the district court’s decision will give trademark owners like Billy Blanks a "leg up" in their efforts to control their marks.