Summary. A trademark license is not like a patent or copyright license. Because a trademark exists to tell consumers who stands behind a product, a licensor who lets someone else use the mark without controlling the quality of what the mark appears on is not just being careless. It may be forfeiting the mark entirely, a doctrine courts call naked licensing. This article explains why quality control is a legal requirement rather than a business preference, what the leading cases in the Ninth, Seventh, and Second Circuits actually demand, and how much control is enough, including the reasonable-reliance line of authority that saves some licensors who never inspected anything. It then works through the anatomy of a trademark license clause by clause: grant and scope, quality standards and approval mechanics, audit rights, marking, goodwill and assignment, sublicensing, term and termination, post-termination sell-off, and what happens in bankruptcy after Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC. A long section covers the accidental franchise problem under the FTC Franchise Rule and state franchise statutes, which turns many ordinary licenses into regulated offerings without anyone noticing. It closes with drafting checklists, a worked example, an FAQ, and related reading.

In 2002, a small California winery lost its trademark. Not to a competitor, not to a canceller at the Trademark Office, and not because it stopped selling wine. It lost the mark because it had licensed the name to a wine producer and then, over eight years, done essentially nothing to check what was going in the bottle. The licensor's president testified that he relied on the winemaker's reputation and occasionally tasted the wine himself. The Ninth Circuit held that was not enough and that the mark had been abandoned through naked licensing. Barcamerica International USA Trust v. Tyfield Importers, Inc., 289 F.3d 589 (9th Cir. 2002).

Read that again, because clients rarely believe it the first time. You can lose a trademark by licensing it badly. Not lose a lawsuit. Lose the mark, against the world, permanently.

That rule seems harsh until you remember what a trademark is for. A patent is a right to exclude. A copyright is a bundle of rights in a work. A trademark is a promise to consumers that goods bearing the mark come from a consistent source with consistent characteristics. When a licensor stops caring what the licensee sells, the promise becomes false, and the law's answer is that the mark has stopped functioning as a mark.

This article explains how to license a trademark without destroying it.

The short answer

  • Licensing is permitted and normal. Section 5 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1055, provides that use of a mark by a "related company" inures to the benefit of the owner, and that such use does not affect validity if the mark is not used in such manner as to deceive the public.
  • "Related company" is defined by control, not corporate structure: "any person whose use of a mark is controlled by the owner of the mark with respect to the nature and quality of the goods or services on or in connection with which the mark is used." 15 U.S.C. § 1127.
  • Failure to control is abandonment. The definition of "abandoned" in § 1127 includes conduct of the owner, "including acts of omission as well as commission," that causes the mark to lose its significance as a mark.
  • The standard of proof is high. Naked licensing is a forfeiture, and courts require "stringent," often clear and convincing, evidence. But high burden is not the same as no risk, and licensors lose these cases.
  • What counts as control is flexible: written standards plus enforcement, actual inspection, approval rights actually exercised, or, in some circuits, justified reliance on a licensee's own quality controls where a close working relationship supports it.
  • An assignment without goodwill is void. 15 U.S.C. § 1060; an "assignment in gross" transfers nothing.
  • Watch for franchise law. A trademark license plus a fee plus significant control or assistance equals a franchise under the FTC Rule, whatever the parties call it.

Part I: Why quality control is a legal duty

The source-identifying function

Trademark law protects consumers first and owners second. The Supreme Court has repeatedly framed the interest this way: a mark's value lies in "the ability of the mark to signal to consumers the source and quality of the goods." When a licensor grants the right to use its mark, the consumer's expectation of consistency does not disappear. The licensor has, in effect, vouched for the licensee.

Section 5 of the Lanham Act permits licensing precisely because Congress accepted that vouching model. The 1946 Act's innovation was to allow a mark owner to use "related companies" while retaining ownership, provided the owner controls quality. Remove the control, and the statutory premise fails.

The abandonment mechanism

Section 45 of the Act defines abandonment in two ways. The first is nonuse with intent not to resume, presumed after three consecutive years. The second, and the one that matters here:

When any course of conduct of the owner, including acts of omission as well as commission, causes the mark to become the generic name for the goods or services on or in connection with which it is used or otherwise to lose its significance as a mark.

Naked licensing lives in that second clause. The licensor's omission (failing to control) causes the mark to lose its significance as an indicator of a single, controlled source.

The consequence is severe: abandonment is a defense to infringement and a ground for cancellation under 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3), which is available at any time, even against an incontestable registration. See Petitioning to Cancel a Trademark Registration.

Part II: How much control is enough

The three routes to adequate control

Courts have recognized three ways a licensor can satisfy the requirement. A well-drafted program uses all three.

Route 1: contractual quality provisions actually enforced. The license specifies quality standards, approval processes, and inspection rights, and the licensor exercises them. This is the safe harbor, and it is available to everyone.

Route 2: actual control in practice. Even a weak or nonexistent written agreement can be saved if the licensor in fact controls quality: it supplies the product, it approves designs, it audits, it trains. Courts care about what happened, not only what was written.

Route 3: justified reliance on the licensee. A licensor may rely on a licensee's own quality controls where the parties have a close working relationship and the reliance is reasonable. This route exists, it has saved licensors, and it should never be the plan. It typically requires a long relationship, a licensee with demonstrated quality systems, and a licensor with actual familiarity with those systems.

The leading cases

Barcamerica (9th Cir. 2002). The licensor's entire quality program consisted of tasting the wine "from time to time" and relying on the winemaker's reputation. There was no inspection, no approval process, and no evidence the licensor knew the winemaker's procedures. The Ninth Circuit found naked licensing and abandonment. The opinion is quotable: a licensor's "unwillingness to exercise control" is what matters, and casual familiarity is not a substitute.

FreecycleSunnyvale v. The Freecycle Network, Inc., 626 F.3d 509 (9th Cir. 2010). The Freecycle Network licensed its marks to local grassroots groups. Its quality provisions consisted of a general "keep it free, legal, and appropriate for all ages" statement and an etiquette guide that member groups were not required to follow. There was no express contractual right to inspect, no actual control, and no reasonable reliance because the parties had no close working relationship. Naked licensing found. The case is a warning for any organization licensing a mark to volunteer chapters, affiliates, or community groups; nonprofits are not exempt.

Eva's Bridal Ltd. v. Halanick Enterprises, Inc., 639 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2011). Judge Easterbrook, characteristically brisk: the license contained no quality standards at all, and the licensor conceded it exercised no control because "she trusted her family." The Seventh Circuit affirmed abandonment and used the occasion to reframe the doctrine. The point, he wrote, is not that the licensor must ensure high quality, but that it must ensure consistency: "the sort of consistency that enables consumers to rely on the mark." A licensor is free to license a mark for terrible products, so long as consumers get the terrible products they expect.

That reframing is useful in practice. Clients often resist quality provisions because they do not want to guarantee a standard. The answer is that the law asks for control over consistency, which is a different and more achievable thing.

Dawn Donut Co. v. Hart's Food Stores, Inc., 267 F.2d 358 (2d Cir. 1959). The foundational modern statement, and still cited constantly. The Second Circuit held that a licensor must "take reasonable measures to detect and prevent misleading uses of his mark by his licensees or suffer cancellation of his federal registration." Dawn Donut is better known for its territorial-remoteness holding, but its licensing passage is the more durable contribution.

What courts actually look for

In my experience the record that wins looks like this:

  • A written agreement with specific, measurable quality standards, not "high quality consistent with the licensor's reputation."
  • A pre-approval process for products, packaging, marketing, and new SKUs, with documented submissions and responses.
  • Inspection rights with a track record of actual inspections, including dates, findings, and follow-up.
  • Complaint handling: a channel for consumer complaints and evidence the licensor acted on them.
  • Enforcement: at least one instance of the licensor requiring a change or threatening termination.
  • Personnel: someone whose job includes licensee oversight.

And here is the record that loses: a beautiful agreement with a robust quality-control section, and a licensing manager who cannot name a single time anyone looked at anything.

Paper is necessary and not sufficient. Write the clause, then calendar the inspections.

Part III: Anatomy of a trademark license

What follows is a clause-by-clause tour, with the traps.

1. Grant and scope

Define precisely: which marks (by registration number), for which goods and services (tied to the registration's identification), in which territory, through which channels, and on an exclusive, sole, or nonexclusive basis.

Traps. Granting rights broader than the registration covers creates a use-based problem; granting exclusivity without carve-outs for the licensor's own use surprises licensors later; failing to distinguish "exclusive" (excludes the licensor too) from "sole" (excludes third parties but not the licensor) causes litigation.

2. Quality standards

This is the clause that determines whether the mark survives.

Include: objective specifications or reference to a brand standards manual (incorporated by reference and amendable); a requirement that the licensee comply with all applicable laws and safety standards; the right to establish and modify standards on reasonable notice; and a statement that the licensee's use inures to the licensor's benefit.

Draft for enforceability, not for comfort. "Products shall be of a quality at least equal to samples approved under Section 4.2" is enforceable. "Products shall be of high quality" is decoration.

3. Approval mechanics

Specify what must be submitted (product samples, packaging, labels, advertising, digital assets, new product introductions), to whom, in what format, and within what time. Include a deemed-approval provision if the licensee needs certainty, but keep the window long enough to be real, and never make deemed approval apply to safety or legal-compliance matters.

Keep the records. Approval correspondence is the evidence of control. A shared folder with dated submissions and responses is worth more in litigation than the contract itself.

4. Inspection and audit

Grant the right to inspect facilities on reasonable notice, to obtain samples from the market (not just from the licensee), and to audit books for royalty verification. Specify who pays: typically the licensor, unless an audit reveals an underpayment above a threshold, in which case the licensee pays.

5. Royalties and reporting

Define the royalty base with precision: gross sales, net sales, and what may be deducted (returns, allowances, taxes, freight). Set reporting frequency, currency, and interest on late payments. Consider minimum guaranteed royalties, which are also useful evidence of a genuine commercial relationship.

6. Ownership, goodwill, and no-challenge

State that the licensor owns the marks, that all use inures to the licensor's benefit, and that the licensee acquires no rights. Include a covenant not to register confusingly similar marks and to assign any that are inadvertently obtained.

No-challenge clauses (barring the licensee from challenging validity) are common and are generally enforceable in trademark licenses, unlike in patent licenses after Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653 (1969). Licensee estoppel remains a live doctrine in trademark law, though courts limit it to the period of the license and to the facts the licensee accepted.

7. Marking and usage rules

Require correct symbol usage, attribution language ("XYZ is a registered trademark of ABC, Inc., used under license"), and adherence to the brand style guide. Proper usage protects against genericide as well as against naked licensing. See Trademark Basics for the underlying principles.

8. Sublicensing

Default to prohibition, then carve out what the business actually needs (contract manufacturers, distributors, affiliates). Any permitted sublicense must impose the same quality obligations and must be terminable when the main license ends. Quality control obligations must flow through the whole chain; a licensor's control over its licensee is worthless if the licensee's subcontractor is unsupervised.

9. Term, renewal, and termination

Specify the term, renewal conditions, and termination rights: for cause (with cure periods), for insolvency, for change of control, and, if the business needs it, for convenience.

Change of control deserves attention. Trademark licenses are personal, and courts have held that a nonexclusive trademark license is not assignable by the licensee absent consent, even without an anti-assignment clause. Say it expressly anyway.

10. Post-termination

Address sell-off rights (a defined period to dispose of existing inventory, often 90 to 180 days, with continued quality obligations and royalty payments), destruction or return of materials, transition of domain names and social media accounts, and cessation of all use.

The holdover licensee. A licensee who keeps using the mark after termination is an infringer, and several courts have held that such use can constitute counterfeiting, unlocking treble or statutory damages, because the mark used is by definition identical to the registered mark. That is a powerful lever, and licensors should preserve it by drafting clean termination mechanics. See Counterfeiting, Seizure Orders, and Schedule A Litigation.

11. Indemnity and insurance

Product liability follows the mark in the public's mind and sometimes in the courtroom. Require the licensee to indemnify the licensor for product claims, to carry product liability insurance with the licensor as additional insured, and to provide certificates. Cap and carve-out the indemnities thoughtfully; see Indemnification and Limitation of Liability.

12. Enforcement and cooperation

Decide who may sue infringers, who controls the litigation, who pays, and how recoveries are shared. Exclusive licensees may have standing to sue in some circumstances; nonexclusive licensees generally do not. Require the licensee to report suspected infringements promptly.

13. Recordation

Trademark licenses are not required to be recorded with the USPTO, unlike assignments, but recordation may be advisable in some foreign jurisdictions where an unrecorded license does not support use by the licensee or does not bind third parties. Build a foreign recordation calendar into any international program.

Part IV: Assignments and the goodwill requirement

Section 10 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1060(a)(1), permits assignment of a registered mark "with the good will of the business in which the mark is used, or with that part of the good will of the business connected with the use of and symbolized by the mark."

An assignment that purports to transfer the mark alone, without the goodwill, is an assignment in gross and is void. The mark does not move; the assignee gets nothing; and the assignor may have abandoned the mark in the process.

Practical guidance:

  • Recite the goodwill transfer expressly. One sentence prevents a decade of argument.
  • Transfer something real. Customer lists, formulas, specifications, inventory, supplier relationships, or the business itself. The substance matters more than the recital, but the recital matters too.
  • Beware intent-to-use applications. Section 1060(a)(1) prohibits assignment of an ITU application before an amendment to allege use or a statement of use is filed, except to a successor to the applicant's ongoing and existing business to which the mark pertains. Violating this voids the application. This is one of the most common and most fatal errors in startup M&A. See Intent-to-Use Trademark Applications.
  • Record the assignment with the USPTO within three months to defeat subsequent bona fide purchasers, § 1060(a)(4). See Recording a Trademark Assignment.

Part V: The accidental franchise

This is the trap that catches the most sophisticated companies, and it has nothing to do with whether anyone intended to sell a franchise.

The FTC Franchise Rule

Under 16 C.F.R. Part 436, a franchise exists where three elements are present, regardless of what the parties call the relationship:

  1. Trademark. The franchisee is granted the right to operate a business identified or associated with the franchisor's mark, or to offer, sell, or distribute goods or services substantially associated with the mark.
  2. Significant control or assistance. The franchisor exerts or has authority to exert a significant degree of control over the franchisee's method of operation, or provides significant assistance in the franchisee's method of operation.
  3. Required payment. The franchisee makes a required payment, or commits to make a required payment, to the franchisor or its affiliate as a condition of obtaining or commencing operation, of at least $500 within the first six months.

Notice the tension. A licensor who does too little quality control risks naked licensing. A licensor who does too much operational control, and charges a fee, may have created a franchise. The zone between them is where trademark licensing actually happens.

The distinction that matters is quality control over the goods versus control over the method of operation. Approving product specifications, packaging, and advertising is quality control. Dictating hours of operation, staffing levels, accounting systems, site selection, training programs, and required suppliers looks like operational control.

The consequences of getting it wrong

If the relationship is a franchise:

  • The franchisor must furnish a Franchise Disclosure Document at least 14 calendar days before the prospective franchisee signs anything or pays anything, 16 C.F.R. § 436.2.
  • Failure to do so is an unfair or deceptive act under Section 5 of the FTC Act, exposing the franchisor to FTC enforcement.
  • Several states impose registration requirements before offers may be made (including California, New York, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and others), with private rights of action and rescission remedies.
  • Many states have franchise relationship laws limiting termination and nonrenewal without good cause and an opportunity to cure, which can trap a licensor into a relationship it wants to end.
  • Some states have business opportunity statutes that reach even further.

Rescission is the remedy that gets attention. A licensee who realizes the relationship was an unregistered franchise may unwind it and recover what it paid, years later.

How to stay out of franchise territory

  • Keep required payments below the threshold, or eliminate them. A pure royalty on sales may still count; get advice.
  • Limit control to product and mark quality. Do not specify how the licensee runs its business.
  • Do not provide a "marketing plan or system" in the state-law sense: no required advertising programs, no operations manual covering the licensee's internal business processes, no mandated point-of-sale systems.
  • Do not offer significant assistance such as site selection, hiring, training in business operations, or management support.
  • Consider a trademark license exemption. Some state statutes contain exemptions for licenses to a licensee with substantial net worth and experience, or fractional franchise exemptions where the licensed business is a small part of the licensee's existing business. These are narrow and technical.
  • If in doubt, comply. Preparing an FDD is expensive; unwinding an unregistered franchise program across nine states is more expensive.

Part VI: Trademark licenses in bankruptcy

If your licensor files for bankruptcy, what happens to your license?

Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code lets a licensee of "intellectual property" elect to retain its rights when a debtor-licensor rejects the license. But the Code's definition of "intellectual property" in 11 U.S.C. § 101(35A) covers trade secrets, patents, patent applications, plant varieties, copyrights, and mask works. It does not mention trademarks.

For decades that omission left trademark licensees exposed. The Supreme Court fixed much of the problem in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 587 U.S. 370 (2019), holding that rejection of an executory contract in bankruptcy constitutes a breach, not a rescission, and therefore does not terminate rights the contract previously granted. A trademark licensee may continue using the mark after rejection, subject to the license's terms.

Important caveats:

  • The licensor's affirmative obligations (to police, to provide materials, to maintain registrations) do not survive as enforceable duties; the licensee's remedy is a prepetition damages claim, which is usually worth pennies.
  • The licensee's continued use without licensor quality control creates a naked licensing risk for the estate's mark, which is exactly the concern Tempnology raised and which the Court did not resolve.
  • A § 363 sale free and clear may present different issues than rejection.

Practical drafting responses: build in the licensee's right to self-manage quality upon licensor insolvency; escrow brand standards and materials; negotiate a security interest or a springing license in the marks; and specify that the license is not executory to the greatest extent possible. See Intellectual Property Licenses in Bankruptcy.

Part VII: Special licensing contexts

Merchandising licenses (a character, logo, or brand on consumer products) are quality-control intensive because the licensor's mark appears on goods it has no expertise in. Approval samples and independent testing are essential.

Co-branding creates two-way exposure. Each party's mark appears on a product neither fully controls. Address which party's quality standards govern, who owns any composite mark, what happens on termination, and how consumer complaints route.

Endorsement and influencer arrangements implicate the FTC's endorsement guides as well as trademark law. Material connections must be disclosed. See Advertising FAQs: A Guide for Small Business.

Intra-corporate licensing (parent to subsidiary) still requires control, though the related-company doctrine makes it easier to establish. Do not assume common ownership substitutes for a written license; put one in place, and have it recite control.

Contract manufacturing is a license even when nobody calls it one. The manufacturer applies your mark to goods; that is licensed use, and quality control obligations attach.

Distribution agreements typically include an implied license to use the mark to resell and advertise the goods. Address it expressly, and address what happens at termination, because distributors who keep advertising a terminated brand are a recurring problem.

Drafting and program checklists

Licensor's quality control program

  • Written license with specific, measurable quality standards.
  • Brand standards manual, incorporated by reference, with an amendment mechanism.
  • Pre-approval process with defined submission requirements and response windows.
  • Documented approval file: submissions, responses, dates.
  • Inspection rights, plus a schedule of actual inspections with written findings.
  • Market sampling program (buy the product from a retail channel, not from the licensee).
  • Consumer complaint channel and a record of licensor follow-up.
  • At least annual written compliance review per licensee.
  • Named internal owner of licensee oversight.
  • Escalation and enforcement history, including at least one documented corrective action.
  • Flow-down of all quality obligations to sublicensees and contract manufacturers.

Franchise-risk screen (run before signing any license)

  • Is a mark being licensed for use in the licensee's business identification?
  • Is the licensee paying us $500 or more in the first six months for any reason?
  • Do we control or assist with anything beyond product and mark quality?
  • Do we provide an operations manual, training, site selection, or required suppliers?
  • Which states will the licensee operate in, and do any require registration?
  • If two or more answers raise a flag, get franchise counsel before signing.

Assignment checklist

  • Express transfer of goodwill.
  • Real business assets accompanying the mark.
  • ITU restriction checked (§ 1060(a)(1)).
  • Chain of title reviewed for gaps and unrecorded prior transfers.
  • Recorded with the USPTO within three months.
  • Foreign recordations calendared.

A worked example

Alder Field Brewing Co. (fictional) has a well-known ALDER FIELD mark for beer. It wants to do three deals.

Deal 1: license the mark to a snack company for ALDER FIELD pretzels.

This is a classic merchandising license. Alder Field knows nothing about pretzels, which is exactly why the quality clause has to be concrete: approved formulation, approved supplier list for salt and flour, allergen labeling compliance, shelf-life testing, and pre-approval of packaging. Alder Field should buy pretzels off the shelf quarterly and taste them. It should also require product liability insurance naming it as an additional insured, because a recall will be reported as an Alder Field recall no matter whose factory made them.

Deal 2: license the mark and brewing methods to a regional brewer who will make and sell ALDER FIELD IPA in three states, paying a per-barrel royalty plus a $25,000 up-front fee, using Alder Field's recipes, equipment specifications, taproom design guidelines, staff training program, and point-of-sale system.

Stop. This is a franchise. Mark, plus required payment over $500, plus significant control and assistance over the method of operation. Alder Field must either restructure (drop the operational control and the up-front fee, keep product quality control) or prepare an FDD and register where required. The fact that everyone in the room calls it a "brewing license" is legally irrelevant.

Deal 3: allow a contract brewer to produce ALDER FIELD lager under Alder Field's recipe for sale by Alder Field.

This is licensed use even though the contract brewer never sells anything itself. Alder Field controls the recipe, the process, and the release testing, so quality control is straightforward. The agreement should still say so, should prohibit the brewer from using the mark for any other purpose, and should require destruction of any overrun rather than sale, because overrun product bearing a genuine mark is a persistent gray market and authentication headache.

The through-line. Each deal needed a different quality mechanism, and one of them was not a license at all in the regulatory sense. The lawyer's job is to spot which is which before signing.

Frequently asked questions

Can I really lose my trademark by licensing it? Yes. Barcamerica, FreecycleSunnyvale, and Eva's Bridal are all cases where the licensor lost rights. The burden of proof on the party asserting naked licensing is high, but licensors do lose.

How often do I have to inspect? There is no statutory frequency. The test is whether the control is adequate to ensure consistency. For a low-risk product with a long-standing licensee, annual may be fine. For a food, cosmetic, children's, or safety-critical product, far more often. Document whatever cadence you choose and follow it.

Our license says we have the right to inspect but we never have. Are we protected? Weakly. A contractual right you never exercise is better than nothing, and some courts have found the retained right sufficient, but the Ninth Circuit in Barcamerica and the Seventh in Eva's Bridal both looked at actual practice. Start inspecting now and paper it.

Do we need quality control for a license to our own subsidiary? Yes, though it is easier to establish. The related-company doctrine in § 1127 turns on control, and common ownership usually supplies it. Put a written license in place anyway; it matters in diligence, in bankruptcy, and in foreign jurisdictions.

What if the licensee actually makes better products than we do? Irrelevant to the doctrine. The requirement is control over consistency, not a guarantee of excellence. Eva's Bridal makes this point directly.

Can we license a mark we have not registered? Yes. Common law marks can be licensed, and the same quality control requirements apply. But you lose the registration-based advantages, and you cannot record with Customs or pursue counterfeiting remedies. See Trademark Rights Under Common Law.

Is a no-challenge clause enforceable? In trademark licenses, generally yes, and licensee estoppel supplements it. This differs from patent licensing, where Lear v. Adkins limits such clauses. Draft it, but do not assume it will bar every challenge, particularly one based on facts arising after the license.

What happens if we terminate and the licensee keeps selling? The licensee becomes an infringer immediately, and several courts have treated post-termination use of the identical mark as counterfeiting, which unlocks treble or statutory damages and fees. Send a clear termination notice, document the effective date, and move quickly.

How do trademark licenses interact with security interests and financing? Trademarks can be collateral, but perfection is governed by Article 9 (UCC financing statement) rather than by USPTO recordation, and lenders typically record a conditional assignment at the USPTO as belt and suspenders. A lender who forecloses steps into a licensing relationship and inherits the quality control duty. Address this in the license and in the security agreement.

Closing thought

The rule that a licensor must control quality strikes many businesspeople as bureaucratic, and it is easy to treat the quality-control section as boilerplate to be initialed and forgotten. But the rule follows directly from what a trademark is. If the mark stops standing for a controlled source, it stops being a mark, and the law simply recognizes what has already happened in the marketplace.

The practical program is not burdensome. Write specific standards. Require approvals and actually respond to them. Inspect on a calendar. Buy the product off the shelf now and then. Keep the file. Do one corrective action when something slips, and document it.

That is perhaps twenty hours a year per licensee. It is also the difference between owning a brand and discovering, in the middle of an infringement case you thought you would win, that you gave it away.

Related articles

This article is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Franchise law obligations vary by state and can arise unintentionally; consult qualified trademark and franchise counsel before entering a licensing arrangement.