Trimarchi v. Together Development Corp.
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
255 B.R. 606 (2000)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
Horace Trimarchi (creditor) owned 25 percent of the outstanding shares of Together Development Corporation (debtor), a company that sold and operated dating services. In 1986 Together Development repurchased its shares from Trimarchi in exchange for two promissory notes. Together Development also assigned Trimarchi a security interest in its trademark, Together Dating Service. Trimarchi filed a financing statement with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). Trimarchi did not file a financing statement with any state or local clerk’s office. In 1997 Together Development filed for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court ordered Together Development to sell its assets, including its trademark. Trimarchi objected to the sale of the trademark, arguing that he had a perfected security interest in the trademark. The bankruptcy court overruled Trimarchi’s objection, finding that Trimarchi had failed to perfect his security interest in the trademark because he did not file financing statements in the relevant state and local clerk’s offices as required by Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Trimarchi appealed, arguing that he had perfected the security interest by filing a financing statement with the PTO as required by the Lanham Act, the federal statute that governed trademark assignments.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gorton, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
