obligations caused an automatic transfer of assets. Again, this was a complete transfer of assets rather than a partial transfer of the trademarks without their attendant goodwill. As such the court must reject in toto defendant’s assertion that the subject trademarks were rendered invalid by virtue of an in gross transfer. Lastly, the court must address defendant’s argument that plaintiff abandoned whatever interest it possessed in the trademarks by failing to exercise direct control over those trademarks. As noted above, the owner of a trademark must protect that trademark from dissolution by controlling those persons authorized to use it. Failure to do so renders the trademark invalid as a mere “naked license.” Societe Comptoir v. Alexander’s Dep’t. Store, 299 F.2d 33 (2d Cir.1962) (<HOLDING>). Defendant contends in the instant case that
holding grant of naked license to be a fraud on the public and unlawful recognizing validity of retroactive license that memorialized grant of oral license holding that claimant may not pursue infringement claim after issuing naked license holding that possession of a drivers license is irrelevant to the offense of failing to present a license which is completed by failing to present the license when requested to do so by an officer recognizing that an owners opinion testimony on the value of his property cannot be based on naked conjecture or solely speculative factors