T & T Mfg. Co. v. A.T. Cross Co., 587 F.2d 533, 538 (1st Cir.1978)) (“[A]sk[ing] ‘whether there is any significant harm to the public’ before holding that a settlement agreement related to trademarks was enforceable”; VISA Int’l Serv. Assn. v. Bankcard Holders of America, 784 F.2d 1472, 1473 (9th Cir.1986) (“ ‘In general, a party entering into a settlement agreement with respect to a trademark will be held to his contract unless enforcement of the contract would result in injury to the public through confusion.’ ”) (citation omitted). Thus, this court finds M & M Produce unequivocally extends Lear to cases involving intellectual property other than those involving patents and to licenses which include a no-challenge provision. See also G & T Terminal Packaging, 425 F.3d at 717-18 (<HOLDING>) (citing MWS Wire Indus., Inc. v. California
holding that where a party claims a document is privileged and the trial court fails to conduct an in camera review or balancing test the trial court has departed from the essential requirements of the law holding admissibility of polygraph evidence should be resolved under fedrevid 403 balancing test but reliability of polygraph test may be included to determine how probative particular polygraph test is holding that the proper test for balancing national security interests with a persons due process rights is the mathews balancing test holding that in performing the pickering balancing test the district court was proper in first assessing the value from the first amendment perspective of the employees speech holding that m  m produce properly applied the lear balancing test