In the case of Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mission Products Holding Inc., stating that a company's rejection of a contract under bankruptcy proceedings does not terminate all rights to trademarks granted by the agreement. Tempnology had entered into an exclusive distribution agreement with Mission Product Holdings for its products and licensed its trademark to them as well. However, when Tempnology filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, it sought to reject this contract which would effectively end Mission’s right to use their trademark according to Bankruptcy Code Section 365(a). The court held that while filing for bankruptcy allows companies like Tempnology some leeway in breaking contracts without facing penalties or damages claims from counterparties (in this case -Mission), it doesn't necessarily mean they can revoke certain rights given under those contracts such as usage of trademarks.

In the dissenting opinion for Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, Justice Sotomayor agreed with the majority that a debtor's rejection of an executory contract under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code constitutes a breach and not rescission of such contract. However, she disagreed on how this should apply to trademark licenses specifically due to their unique nature compared to other intellectual property rights. She argued that it was unnecessary and potentially misleading for the Court to declare that all contractual rights outside bankruptcy law survive rejection as if there had been no bankruptcy proceedings at all; instead, each case should be evaluated individually based on its specific circumstances and terms in order to determine what effects rejection might have.