was in "early 1995.” (Dahan Deck, ¶ 1.) "To acquire ownership of a trademark,” however, "it is not enough to have invented the mark first”; instead, "the party claiming ownership must have been the first to actually use the mark in the sale of goods or services.” Sengoku Works Ltd. v. RMC Int’l, Ltd., 96 F.3d 1217, 1219 (9th Cir. 1996), as modified, 97 F.3d 1460 (9th Cir. 1996). 33 . The fact that plaintiff only recently acquired the mark through an assignment from its initial registrant — which appears to have been motivated primarily by plaintiffs desire to secure priority over defendants — does not detract from the validity of the assignment. See Glow Industries, 252 F.Supp.2d at 982 (citing Carnival Brand Seafood Co. v. Carnival Brands, Inc., 187 F.3d 1307, 1309 (11th Cir. 1999)) (<HOLDING>); and Money Store v. Haniscorp Finance, Inc.,
holding over holding that an assignment to achieve priority over a rival was valid holding plaintiff did not have standing to challenge the validity of an assignment from mers to bac because she was not a party to the assignment and the assignment did not affect her underlying obligation to make timely payments holding assignment of a mortgage was not subject to article 9 holding that a wifes interest in property has priority over a general creditor