Rectanus Co., 248 U.S. 90, 39 S.Ct. 48, 63 L.Ed. 141 (1918). A sale (assignment) of a trademark apart from its goodwill is characterized as an “assignment in gross” and passes no rights to the assignee. See, Sands, Taylor & Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co., 978 F.2d 947, 956 (7th Cir.1992). In the case of a bare assignment of a trademark, apart from genuine goodwill, assets, trade secrets or management, courts will generally invalidate such a transfer as an assignment in gross. McCarthy, supra; Mister Donut of Am., Inc. v. Mr. Donut, Inc., 418 F.2d 838, 842 (9th Cir.1969) (stating that the assignment was in gross because there had been no transfer of “customer lists, merchandise, equipment, recipes, decals or other goods”); PepsiCo, Inc. v. Grapette Co., 416 F.2d 285, 290 (8th Cir.1969) (<HOLDING>); and Hough Mfg. Corp. v. Virginia Metal
holding the transfer invalid when the assignee did not acquire any of the assignors assets such as the formula or process by which the soft drink was manufactured holding that  727a2a does not apply to the transfer of the assets of a corporation in which the debtor is a shareholder holding that the unauthorized transfer of estate assets was in blatant disregard of the integrity of the court as well as the constraints mandated by congress in the bankruptcy code holding that the states transfer statute did not violate the apprendi rule because the transfer hearing determines not the minors guilt but the forum in which his guilt may be adjudicated holding that the failure to condition a transfer on death or remarriage of the wife was a factor showing that the transfer was not in the nature of alimony