This book includes a plain text version that is designed for high accessibility. To use this version please follow this link.
JULY 2013


Legal Focus


85 the Intellectual Property Considerations in Spin-offs


Here Lawyer Monthly takes a look at the intellectual property considerations and issues in a spin-off. The use of the spin-off transactions during the breakup of a company can raise significant intellectual property issues for both parts of the business. With this in mind we speak to Dennis Prahl, a partner in the New York Office of the international law firm of Ladas & Parry LLP, an intellectual property boutique firm celebrating its 100th anniversary with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, the Washington DC Area, London and Munich.


What are the main issues that arise?


Countless intellectual property issues arise in the creation of a spin-off entity (Spinco) from a parent company, depending upon the business goals and structure of the transaction. This arrangement normally assumes that Spinco and the parent company will no longer be controlled by the same party after the closing date and, accordingly, will have no motivation beyond self-interest to cooperate once the transaction is concluded. It is therefore crucial that the arrangement contemplate as many contingencies as possible from an intellectual property perspective, as these will have ramifications from the first day post closing and far beyond.


Some of the top intellectual property considerations that arise in a Spinco transaction include: 1) Conduct thorough due diligence before, during and up to closing of the transaction, identifying specifically the universe of intellectual property that will stay with the parent, will be transferred to the Spinco and, in some cases, will be shared by the parties, including trademarks, whether registered or common law, slogans, trade dress, domain names, social media user names, email addresses, licenses, software, copyrights in all materials including advertising, brochures and websites, technology, trade secrets and patents;


2) Define how the parent and Spinco will coexist whether based on a distinction in field of business, by brand or by geography – each method of division has its own traps and must be addressed by specific agreement between the parties;


3) Clearly identify and value any encumbrances on the transferred rights including ongoing claims, potential claims,


litigation or encumbering agreements or relationships;


4) Clearly define the representations and warranties offered or requested by each party to determine who has responsibility should a transferred asset turn out to be less than expected;


5) Provide a mechanism for contingencies and c operation, subjecting each party to a continuing and specific duty to assist in resolving any post-closing issues;


6) Budget for the intellectual property transactions raised by the deal and include the budget either in the transfer price or the transaction budget;


7) Get input from the business and technical sides of each party tasked with the daily operations post closing in order to get a complete picture of how the deal will affect the businesses post-closing;


8) Where Spinco will have a new corporate identity from the parent company, involve IP counsel early so that an appropriate new brand is adopted together with a corporate structure that logically, efficiently and cost-effectively supports the new business.


What challenges do these issues bring and how can they be navigated?


Any challenges are best navigated by involving specialist IP counsel in the transaction early and often.


If Spinco will retain the parent company house brand, it may be possible to divide ownership of the house brand between the two parties. In such cases the parties must agree on how the brands will coexist, what efforts the parties will make to avoid confusion, what the parties will do to address confusion and what the parties will do vis-à-vis third parties that cause confusion. However, if Spinco and the parent will continue to operate in the same or similar fields in the same geographic area, it may be necessary for the parent to license, rather than assign, its brands to Spinco. Where the spinoff entails carving up rights by geography, agreements must be in place to address any coexistence issues or parallel goods issues.


The above considerations will also apply if the parent company and Spinco plan to use product brands concurrently. Where Spinco develops a new house brand but continues using the parent company’s product brands, the parties must agree on how to separate the house brand from the


product brands, providing for transitioning the house brand off products, sell-off periods, labeling and signage changes, transitional licenses, etc. The parties must also determine how to allocate, transfer or share websites and social media accounts.


What are the potential pitfalls companies face if they get the handling of these issues wrong?


If these issues are not addressed properly prior to closing, the parties may incur significant time and expense in remediating the problems as they are identified. This can involve paying more for IP counsel’s “remediation” services for cleaning up the transaction than had they been engaged pre-closing; expending internal resources that should otherwise be growing the business; attempting to renegotiate provisions of the arrangement post-closing when the other side has no incentive to cooperate; facing trademark dilution or vitiation issues for major brands absent effective agreements during the transaction; arguing over costs, claims and valuations for issues identified post-closing; incurring substantial costs in the operating budget when the anticipated costs of the transaction were not properly budgeted in the transfer price or the transaction budget; and incurring rebranding or IP ownership reorganization costs if Spinco’s new brand is not created and implemented properly. LM


Contact:


dennis Prahl Ladas & Parry LLP tel: 212.708.1817 Fax: 212.246.8959


Email: dprahl@ladas.com Website: www.ladas.com


1040 Avenue of the Americas, new York, nY 10018-3738 USA


www.lawyer-monthly.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132