Trademarks can be useful as debt security for lenders and borrowers alike. The relevant trademark laws create complex issues, however, including the frequently misunderstood concepts of “assignments in gross” and “naked licensing.” Too often, lenders and borrowers fail to take these principles into account when setting up seemingly simple trademark security interests.
The results can be disastrous. As shown in Clorox v. Chemical Bank� [FOOTNOTE 1] under the worst circumstances disregard of these principles can lead to destruction of the very trademark in which the security interest is sought. This occurrence harms both the borrower and the lender.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
