United States: Trademarks In Bankruptcy Sales: One Court Provides Guidance

Last Updated: January 14 2015
Article by Peter C. Blain

Trademarks today are the poor cousins of other forms of intellectual property under the United States Bankruptcy Code (the "Code"). 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532. Trademarks are not included in the definition of "intellectual property" found in Code section 101(35A), and consequently are not explicitly treated in the same fashion as other forms of intellectual property under Code section 365(n), which provides that licensees of patents and other intellectual property may continue to use the licensed property after rejection of the license agreements.

Congress's omission of trademarks was intentional. Congress observed that to enforce a trademark the licensor must monitor the quality of the licensee's goods associated with the trademark, which makes trademarks different than other forms of intellectual property. Regarding the omission of trademarks from Code section 365(n), the legislative history provides:

[T]he bill does not address the rejection of executory trademark, trade name or service mark licenses by debtor-licensors... [S]uch contracts raise issues beyond the scope of this legislation. In particular, trademark, trade name and service mark licensing relationships depend to a large extent on control of the quality of the products or services sold by the licensee. Since these matters could not be addressed without more extensive study, it was determined to postpone congressional action in this area and to allow the development of equitable treatment of this situation by bankruptcy courts.

S. Rep. No. 100-505, at 5 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3200, 3204 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

The uncertainty and resultant litigation arising from the omission of trademarks from the ambit of Code section 365(n) has recently prompted a reconsideration of this issue. The House passed the Innovation Act of 2013, H.R. 3309, 113th Cong. § 6(d) (2013), which would add trademarks to the Code definition of intellectual property. In addition, the report of the American Bankruptcy Institute Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11, released in December 2014, makes a similar recommendation at page 126. However, today the uncertainty continues.

The Background of the Crumbs Bake Shop Decision

In re Crumbs Bake Shop, Inc., No. 14-24287, 2014 WL 5508177 (Bankr. D.N.J. (2014), decided on October 31, 2014, is a thoughtful, well-reasoned opinion from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey which provides some guidance regarding the rights of trademark licensees in connection with the sale of substantially all of the assets by a Chapter 11 debtor. Crumbs Bake Shop, Inc. (the "Debtor") was in the business of selling cupcakes, baked goods and beverages through retail stores, catering services, at wholesale and through an e-commerce division. In connection with its business, it licensed the "Crumbs" trademark and the right to sell its products to various third parties. The Debtor also entered into a brand licensing representation agreement with Brand Squared Licensing ("BSL"), which obtained for the Debtor six additional licensees.

The Debtor experienced severe liquidity issues and, after ceasing operations, filed a petition for relief under Code Chapter 11 on July 11, 2014. On the same day, the Debtor entered into a credit bid Asset Purchase Agreement with Lemonis Fischer Acquisition Company, LLC ("LFAC").

On July 14, 2014, the Debtor filed a motion to sell substantially all of its assets to LFAC and, after an unsuccessful attempt to solicit a higher or better offer, on August 27, 2014 the court approved the sale of the Debtor's assets to LFAC free and clear of liens, claims, encumbrances and interests. On August 28, 2014, the Debtor filed a motion to reject certain executory contracts, including the trademark license agreements. BSL filed an objection asserting that Code section 365(n) permitted the licensees to elect to retain the right to use the trademarks, and that BSL was entitled to the royalty stream due upon the continued use of the marks. On September 19, 2014, the Debtor withdrew the rejection motion with respect to the trademark licenses and LFAC filed a motion requesting that the court clarify the rights of the parties.

Issues to be Addressed

LFCA asked the court to determine the following issues:

1. Whether trademark licensees to rejected intellectual property licenses fall under the protective scope of Code section 365(n), notwithstanding that "trademarks" are not explicitly included in the Code definition of "intellectual property";

2. Whether a sale of the Debtor's assets under Code sections 363(b) and (f) trumps and extinguishes the rights of third party licensees under Code section 365(n); and

3. To the extent there are continuing obligations under the license agreements, which party is entitled to the royalties generated as a result of the licensee's continued use of the intellectual property. In re Crumbs Bake Shop, Inc., 2014 WL 5508177, at *1.

Lubrizol and Section 365(n)

The court began its analysis by discussing Lubrizol Enterprises, Inc. v. Richmond Metal Finishers, Inc., 756 F.2d 1043 (4th Cir. 1985), a case holding that the rights of intellectual property licensees are cut off upon rejection of the license agreements under Code section 365. The outcry from the commercial community resulting from the Lubrizol decision, said the court, prompted the enactment of Code section 365(n). In re Crumbs Bake Shop, Inc., 2014 WL 5508177, at *3. The court also noted that the reasoning of Lubrizol has been substantially discredited, citing In re Exide Technologies, 607 F.3d 957 (3d Cir. 2010) and Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, 686 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. 2012). Id.

Nonetheless, LFCA argued that because trademarks were excluded from the ambit of Code section 365(n), the holding of Lubrizol still governed the effect of the rejection of a trademark license agreement. Id. The court rejected this negative inference, relying instead upon the legislative history of Code section 365(n) (set forth above) which in the highlighted portion provides that the impact of rejection of trademark license agreements was to be developed by the bankruptcy courts. Id. at *4.

The court found that, in this instance, it would be inequitable to strip the licensees of the rights for which they had they bargained. Moreover, as the Sunbeam court observed, outside of bankruptcy, a licensor's breach does not terminate the licensee's right to use the intellectual property. Id. The court also dismissed LFCA's contention that allowing the licensees to continue to use the trademarks placed LFCA in a licensor/licensee relationship that it never intended to assume. The court said that LFCA approached the transaction with eyes wide open and had the ability after due diligence to adjust its price to account for the existing license agreements. The rights of licensees should not be vitiated to aid LFCA's recovery under its credit bid. Id.

Additionally, the court rejected LFCA's argument that allowing the use of the trademarks would leave LFCA with little ability to control the quality of the products. Warranties given by the licensees to their customers relating to the quality of the products sold, among other things, is a sufficient incentive for licensees to maintain the quality of the goods. Id. at *4-5. The court noted that the Innovation Act pending in Congress, while not dispositive of the issue, was evidence that Congress was cognizant of the prejudice to licensees caused by courts adopting the position advanced by LFCA and that Congress desired to remedy this inequitable result. Id. at *5.

The Licensees Did Not Consent to the Sale

The court then discussed the impact of the sale order authorizing the transfer of assets free and clear of liens, claims, encumbrances and interests upon the rights of the licensees to continue to use the trademarks in the absence of the licensees' consent to the sale. LFCA argued that the licensees impliedly consented to the sale by failing to object. The court scoffed at this assertion, observing that the sale motion and the attached asset purchase agreement were so confusing and had so many cross-references that it was unreasonable to conclude that the licensees had notice that their rights were going to be adversely affected. Id. at *5-6.

The court noted that while the sale order did reference that the sale was free and clear of license rights in favor of a third party, this reference comprised 10 words in a 29-page order, which in turn was attached to a 129-page pleading. Id. at *7. The court discussed at length In re Lower Bucks Hospital, 571 F. App'x. 139 (3d Cir. 2014) in which the Third Circuit, considering the enforceability of a third party release included in a plan of reorganization, held that clear notice of the impact of releases was a prerequisite to the release's enforceability. Id. at *6. Had the licensees in this case received adequate notice, the court concluded, they would have certainly objected and the court would have found that their rights under Code section 365(n) would remain intact. Id. at *7.

Code Section 365(n) Versus Code Section 363(f)

The court then turned to the interplay of Code sections 365(n) and 363(f), which authorizes sales free and clear of interests in the debtor's property. The court noted with approval the reasoning of In re Churchill Properties III, Limited Partnership, 197 B.R. 283 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1996), where that court rejected the claim that a sale under Code section 363(f) extinguishes the right of a tenant to remain in possession of real property after a lease rejection under Code section 365(h), as this would negate the specific rights given in that section. In re Crumbs Bake Shop, Inc. 2014 WL 5508177, at *8. The court noted that this position is specifically supported by the legislative history of Code section 365(h):

Subsection (h) protects real property lessees of the debtor if the trustee rejects an unexpired lease under which the debtor is the lessor (or sublessor). The subsection permits the lessee to remain in possession of the leased property or to treat the lease as terminated by the rejection... Thus, the tenant will not be deprived of his estate for the term for which he bargained.

S. Rep. No. 95-989, at 60 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5787, 5846.

The court said that, as with real property leases in Code section 365(h), specific rights are granted to licensees under Code section 365(n) permitting them to continue using intellectual property. In this case, said the court, Code section 363(f) does not wipe away the rights of the licensees to continue to use the trademarks under Code section 365(n) after sale of the trademarks. In re Crumbs Bake Shop, Inc. 2014 WL 5508177, at *8. In reaching its conclusion, the court specifically rejected the holding of the Seventh Circuit in Precision Industries, Inc. v. Qualitech Steel SBQ, LLC, 327 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2003), wherein the court concluded that Code section 365(h) is limited to rejection and that unless a lessee seeks adequate protection prior to a sale under Code section 363(f), its rights can be extinguished in a Code section 363 sale. Id.

Who Gets the Royalties?

Finally, the court addressed the issue of who is entitled to the post-sale royalty payments for the continued use of the trademarks by the licensees. While the court said there was no question that the trademarks were among the assets sold to LFCA, the license agreements between the debtor and the licensees were not assumed and assigned to LFCA and remained assets of the bankruptcy estate. Id. at *8-9. The court relied upon the Third Circuit's decision in In re CellNet Data Systems., Inc., 327 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 2003), wherein intellectual property was sold to a buyer but the underlying license agreements were excluded from the sale and subsequently rejected. The Third Circuit concluded that under Code section 365(n)(2)(B), the obligation to pay post-rejection royalties is directly linked to the rejected contract and not to the intellectual property conveyed. The contract, therefore, determines where the royalties flow. In re Crumbs Bake Shop, Inc. 2014 WL 5508177, at *9.

Under this analysis, the court found that the post-sale royalties belonged to the Debtor but that the pre-sale royalties, which constituted accounts receivable, belonged to LFCA. Although BSL had proposed taking an assignment of the license agreements, BSL did hold the trademarks, and the court noted that it would be unable to perform under the agreements, and therefore would not be entitled to the royalties. Id. Based upon the foregoing, the court denied LFCA's motion.


The decision is noteworthy for several reasons. First, it makes clear that although trademarks are excluded from the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code dealing with intellectual property, under the appropriate circumstances, licensees should not be deprived of the ability to use the trademark after a sale or rejection of the executory license agreement. This may be crucial to the economic viability of licensees which have invested significant amounts to promote and sell a debtor licensor's products. Second, the court's insistence upon adequate notice to the affected licensees and its scathing criticism of the notice in this case stands as a stark warning to drafters of pleadings in connection with asset sales, particularly because the style, structure and complexity of the pleadings in this case typify the pleadings drafted in connection with many asset sales in bankruptcy.

Third, the court clarified that Code section 363(f) authorizing sales free and clear of interests does not trump Code section 365(n), which allows a licensee to continue to use the trademark post-sale or post-rejection. While in the Seventh Circuit, the Qualitech decision presumably still requires a trademark licensee faced with a sale of the trademarks to request adequate protection or risk losing its rights, the Crumbs Bake Shop decision may persuade a court in that jurisdiction that continued use of the trademark would constitute an acceptable form of adequate protection. Finally, the court clearly tied the entitlement to the royalty payments due for continued use to the contract and not to the ownership of the trademark. Asset purchasers should insist that trademark licenses are assumed and assigned to them; otherwise, they risk losing all of the benefits associated with the trademark(s).

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.

Peter C. Blain
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:
  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.
  • Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.
    If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here
    If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here

    Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

    Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

    Use of www.mondaq.com

    You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


    Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

    The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


    Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

    • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
    • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
    • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

    Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

    Information Collection and Use

    We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

    We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

    Mondaq News Alerts

    In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


    A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

    Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

    Log Files

    We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


    This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

    Surveys & Contests

    From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


    If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


    From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

    *** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


    This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

    Correcting/Updating Personal Information

    If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

    Notification of Changes

    If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

    How to contact Mondaq

    You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

    If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.

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