Atari’s bankruptcy filing and subsequent attempt to liquidate its assets piece by piece offered a case study in the intersection of intellectual property, brand value, and corporate distress. For video game lawyers, the Atari bankruptcy raised important questions about how iconic gaming brands are valued, sold, and protected in bankruptcy proceedings—questions that remain relevant as the gaming industry continues to evolve.
Beleaguered video game company Atari sought approval from the New York bankruptcy court overseeing its Chapter 11 proceedings to sell its assets individually after a buyer for the entire company failed to materialize. Atari proposed competitive bidding on its core assets: $15 million for the Atari brand and trademark portfolio, $3.5 million for the Rollercoaster Tycoon franchise, and $1.5 million for the Test Drive brand.
Atari’s financial deterioration was widely attributed to the gaming industry’s shift toward freemium and low-cost mobile games. Traditional premium console and PC game publishers struggled to compete as consumers migrated to iOS and Android platforms offering cheap or free gaming experiences. Atari, with a legacy portfolio built on classic arcade and console gaming, was poorly positioned to adapt.
The most valuable assets in a video game company bankruptcy are almost always intellectual property—not physical equipment, real estate, or cash. Game studios own copyright in their game code, art assets, music, and story content; trademark rights in game titles and character names; and in some cases patent rights covering gameplay mechanics or technical implementations. These IP assets drive the valuation in any bankruptcy sale process.
The Atari brand itself—the iconic futuristic logo that defined a generation of gaming—represented the company’s most valuable asset. Trademark rights in a famous brand name can survive the bankruptcy of the company that originally built that brand, because trademark rights exist independently of the business that created them. A buyer acquiring the Atari trademark could license it to third parties or use it to brand new products, trading on decades of consumer recognition.
However, trademark rights can be challenged if the brand falls out of active commercial use. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1127, a trademark is abandoned if its use has been discontinued with intent not to resume use, or after three consecutive years of non-use, which creates a rebuttable presumption of abandonment. A buyer of distressed game IP must move quickly to put the acquired marks back into commercial use to preserve their validity.
Video game copyrights protect the game software code, audiovisual content, and other expressive elements as separate works. Classic Atari games like Pong, Asteroids, and Centipede have copyright protection that will last for the life of the work plus 70 years under the Copyright Act. A buyer of these rights acquires the ability to republish, remaster, or create sequels based on the underlying content.
The Rollercoaster Tycoon and Test Drive franchises represented separate IP assets with their own trademark and copyright portfolios. These franchises had established fan bases and ongoing commercial viability that justified significant standalone valuations. A buyer of a gaming franchise acquires not just the existing titles but the right to develop new installments under the established brand identity.
Video game companies that license their IP to publishers, developers, or platform operators must navigate the intersection of IP licensing and bankruptcy law. Under 11 U.S.C. § 365, a debtor in bankruptcy can assume or reject executory contracts, including IP license agreements. If a debtor rejects a license, the licensee may elect to retain its rights under 11 U.S.C. § 365(n), but only with respect to rights that existed under the license prior to the rejection—the licensee loses the ability to enforce affirmative obligations of the debtor, such as maintenance and support.
Whether you are an IP bidder in a gaming company bankruptcy, a licensee seeking to protect your rights when a licensor files for bankruptcy, a developer acquiring gaming IP through a distressed sale, or an entrepreneur building a new gaming business on acquired legacy assets, the legal issues involved require specialized knowledge at the intersection of intellectual property law, bankruptcy law, and technology licensing.
Revision Legal’s video game lawyers understand the gaming industry and the legal frameworks that govern IP ownership, licensing, and enforcement. If you need legal representation in connection with video game intellectual property matters, contact us today for a consultation.
When a company with significant intellectual property assets files for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 or Chapter 7, the treatment of those assets becomes a central issue in the reorganization or liquidation. Video game companies present a particularly complex IP profile: trademarks in game titles and characters, copyrights in code, artwork, music, and narrative content, patents on game mechanics and user interface innovations, and licensing agreements running in both directions — as licensor and as licensee.
IP as a bankruptcy estate asset. Upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, all of the debtor’s property — including intellectual property — becomes property of the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541. The trustee or debtor-in-possession can sell, license, or assign IP assets subject to court approval. For a video game company, this means that valuable franchises, character rights, and code repositories may be sold to a stalking horse bidder, auctioned under 11 U.S.C. § 363, or assigned through a confirmed reorganization plan.
Executory contracts and IP licenses. Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code governs the treatment of executory contracts — agreements where material performance remains due from both parties. IP license agreements are often executory contracts. A debtor-in-possession can assume and assign an IP license, subject to anti-assignment clauses and any required consent, or reject it. Rejection of an executory contract is treated as a breach occurring immediately before the bankruptcy filing, giving the non-debtor party a prepetition damages claim — but no right to specific performance or reinstatement of the license.
Section 365(n) protection for licensees. Congress enacted § 365(n) specifically to protect IP licensees from losing their rights when the licensor files for bankruptcy and rejects the license. Under § 365(n), if a debtor rejects an IP license, the licensee may elect to retain its rights under the license for the duration of the agreement — including any extensions — by continuing to pay royalties. The licensee’s rights cannot be further encumbered by the debtor. For video game companies that license franchises from third-party IP owners, this protection is critical to preserving the right to continue developing and publishing under a license even if the licensor becomes insolvent.
The trademark aspects of a video game company’s bankruptcy deserve particular attention. Trademark rights require continued use in commerce to remain valid — abandonment occurs when use is discontinued with intent to abandon. In a bankruptcy liquidation where operations are shutting down, the trustee must act promptly to either license or sell trademark rights before cessation of use creates an abandonment problem. A buyer at a § 363 sale can acquire the trademark assets and continue using them in commerce, but only if the sale is structured to include all associated goodwill — a requirement under 15 U.S.C. § 1060. Assignments in gross, which purport to transfer a trademark without the associated goodwill, are invalid and convey no rights to the buyer, making careful deal structuring essential in any IP-centric bankruptcy sale.
Facebook agreed to pay $550 million to settle a class action lawsuit under Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act. Here’s what the case means for biometric data law.
Read more about Facebook’s $550M Illinois Biometric Settlement
Seizing an infringer’s domain name is one of the most effective ways to stop IP theft online. Here’s how courts order domain transfers and what rights holders need to show.
Read more about Seizing an Infringer’s Domain to Stop Infringement
Recent court decisions on what counts as an ‘autodialer’ under the TCPA suggest restrictions may be loosening. Here’s what businesses using automated texts need to know.
Read more about TCPA Autodialer Decisions: Are Restrictions Easing?