{"id":224,"date":"2018-01-25T12:35:55","date_gmt":"2018-01-25T16:35:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/?p=224"},"modified":"2018-01-25T12:35:55","modified_gmt":"2018-01-25T16:35:55","slug":"first-circuit-rejects-seventh-circuits-approach-to-rejection-of-trademark-licenses-licensees-retain-no-post-rejection-trademark-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/2018\/01\/25\/first-circuit-rejects-seventh-circuits-approach-to-rejection-of-trademark-licenses-licensees-retain-no-post-rejection-trademark-rights\/","title":{"rendered":"First Circuit Rejects Seventh Circuit&#8217;s Approach to Rejection of Trademark Licenses: Licensees Retain No Post-Rejection Trademark Rights"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In one of the first decisions issued this year by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the court addressed an issue of first impression. In <em>Mission Products Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, n\/k\/a Old Cold LLC<\/em>, the First Circuit held that the omission of trademarks from the definition of \u201cintellectual property\u201d in Section 101(35A) of the Bankruptcy Code, as incorporated by Section 365(n), leaves a trademark licensee with nothing more than a claim for damages upon the rejection of its license under Section 365(a). In so holding, the First Circuit joined the majority of bankruptcy courts that have addressed the issue and rejected the view adopted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.<\/p>\n<p>To read the full text of this <em>Alert<\/em>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/alerts\/first_circuit_rejects_seventh_circuit_approach_rejection_trademark_licenses_0118.html\">please visit the Duane Morris website<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In one of the first decisions issued this year by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the court addressed an issue of first impression. In Mission Products Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, n\/k\/a Old Cold LLC, the First Circuit held that the omission of trademarks from the definition of \u201cintellectual property\u201d &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/2018\/01\/25\/first-circuit-rejects-seventh-circuits-approach-to-rejection-of-trademark-licenses-licensees-retain-no-post-rejection-trademark-rights\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;First Circuit Rejects Seventh Circuit&#8217;s Approach to Rejection of Trademark Licenses: Licensees Retain No Post-Rejection Trademark Rights&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[182,183],"ppma_author":[238],"class_list":["post-224","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-first-circuit","tag-mission-products-holdings-inc-v-tempnology"],"authors":[{"term_id":238,"user_id":6,"is_guest":0,"slug":"duanemorris3","display_name":"Duane Morris","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/22\/2014\/10\/dmlogo.jpg","author_category":"1","last_name":"Davies","first_name":"Thomas","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com","description":"<a href=\"http:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\">Visit the Duane Morris website.<\/a>"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=224"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=224"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=224"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=224"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=224"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}