Source: https://mediatbankry.com/2018/11/01/what-happens-when-executory-contracts-are-rejected-u-s-supreme-court-to-decide-mission-v-tempnology/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 00:39:44+00:00

Document:
Are those rights affected in some other way?
The U.S Supreme Court will tackle this question in the case of Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC (Case No. 17-1657) (Cert. granted, October 26, 2018)) [Fn. 1].
The case involves a rejected trademark license — and the licensee wants to continue using the trademark.
Debtor produced cooling fabrics (e.g., towels, wraps, hoodies, bandanas) and sold them through a distribution agreement with Distributor, which agreement included a trademark license.
Debtor filed bankruptcy, where it sold all assets under § 363 and rejected the distribution agreement.
Distributor asserted post-petition rights to continue using Debtor’s trademarks, based on § 365(n) protections for holders of intellectual property rights.
The Bankruptcy Court addressed the trademark issue and ruled in Debtor’s favor: it held that trademark license rights “are not afforded any protection under § 365(n)” and that Distributor could not continue using the trademarks.
(ii) “Debtor’s rejection of the Agreement did not vaporize [Distributor’s] trademark rights,” and Distributor’s right to continue using Debtor’s trademarks continued in effect, under § 365(g).
The rejected Question 2 explicitly identifies a § 365(n) issue [Fn. 4], and you’d think the Court would have granted this Question 2 as well, if its ruling would be limited to § 365(n) issues.
–Whether Distributor holds an administrative claim or a general unsecured claim in Debtor’s bankruptcy?
The Supreme Court apparently found Distributor’s response letter persuasive, because it granted certiorari on October 26, 2018.
Can’t wait to see what the Supreme Court does with this executory contract question!
Footnote 3: Such ruling appears on the second page of this Supreme Court document.
Was the Mediator Blind to Collusion During Mediation, Or Part of It?

References: v. 
 § 363
 § 365
 § 365
 § 365
 § 365
 § 365