[Ip-transactions] How to manage survival of some terms of an agreement

[Pamela Chestek]

Nope, there are none of those things in it. That's sort of the mystery, 
what exactly is it that they think was so critical that the whole 
agreement should remain in effect? When I went through it, the only 
terms that I would have survive were non-disparagement (hey, why not?), 
choice of law, enforcement costs, and notices.

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
300 Fayetteville St.
Unit 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
+1 919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com



On 3/8/2024 5:27 PM, Jessica R. Friedman via Ip-transactions wrote:
>
> Are they concerned about survival of certain obligations, such as 
> warranties and indemnity and payment? But that should be covered by a 
> proper survival clause.
>
> Jessica R. Friedman
>
> Attorney at Law
>
> 300 East 59 Street, Ste. 2406
>
> New York, NY 10022
>
> Phone: 212-220-0900
>
> Cell: 917-647-1884
>
> E-mail:_jrfriedman at litproplaw.com <mailto:jrfriedman at litproplaw.com>_
>
> URL: _www.literarypropertylaw.com <http://www.literarypropertylaw.com>_
>
> 1479430908386_PastedImage
>
> *From: *Ip-transactions <ip-transactions-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> 
> on behalf of asarabia2 via Ip-transactions 
> <ip-transactions at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Date: *Friday, March 8, 2024 at 5:26 PM
> *To: *ip-transactions at oppedahl-lists.com 
> <ip-transactions at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc: *asarabia2 <asarabia2 at gmail.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [Ip-transactions] How to manage survival of some terms 
> of an agreement
>
> I have seen a lot of trademark licenses, but have not seen that 
> provision.  I share your concern: a very bad idea which would  force 
> you to consider the possible meaning of each term which continues 
> without the license grant. Easier and better to take it out.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tony Sarabia
>
> IP Business Law, Inc.
> 320 via Pasqual
> Redondo Beach, CA 90277
> (310)377-5171
> www.calrestitution.com <http://www.calrestitution.com>
>
> On 3/8/2024 2:07 PM, Pamela Chestek via Ip-transactions wrote:
>
>     I'm reviewing a trademark license that someone else wrote and I
>     see something I've not seen before and wondering why it's done
>     this way. It's not written by an adversary, I was just asked for a
>     second opinion on it.
>
>     The document is an agreement that includes a trademark license.
>     There are very few other terms; it is a royalty-free license so
>     there isn't any need for commercial terms like payment, etc. It
>     has the standard product approval, marketing approval,
>     termination, and boilerplate, but nothing particularly substantive
>     outside of the trademark license.
>
>     Upon termination, the agreement says expressly that only the
>     license (identified by section number) terminates and "Except for
>     any obligations in this license that expressly state they apply
>     only during the term of this license, all provisions of this
>     license will survive a License Termination Event."
>
>     So first off, I think the references to "license" should be
>     "Agreement" - they've misused the word "license" to mean both the
>     specific grant language and the document itself, so that needs to
>     get cleaned up.
>
>     But fixing that problem, have you seen license agreements where
>     the premise is that the agreement itself remains operative, it's
>     only the license grant that terminates? Typically the agreement as
>     a whole terminates and only specifically identified sections
>     survive. I'm a little nervous about the ways that a breaching
>     licensee might try to claim they still get to do things that might
>     infringe. For example, there is a section, different from the
>     license grant, that describes how the mark should be used. Might
>     they claim that section didn't terminate and by implication they
>     get to use the mark?
>
>     I'm just wondering what I'm missing. I'm thinking maybe they used
>     an agreement that had more significant business terms (e.g.,
>     royalty payments) where you do want to make sure you continue to
>     get those even after the license terminates?
>
>     Pam
>
>     Pamela S. Chestek
>     Chestek Legal
>     300 Fayetteville St.
>     Unit 2492
>     Raleigh, NC 27602
>     +1 919-800-8033
>     pamela at chesteklegal.com
>     www.chesteklegal.com <http://www.chesteklegal.com>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/ip-transactions_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240308/d781f6c1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8892 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/ip-transactions_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240308/d781f6c1/attachment.png>