by the six-year statute of limitations. Finally, the Fifth Motion seeks summary judgment on several of the state law claims upon various grounds. A. Trademark Issues 1. Standing Midwest contends that BCN/Clearing lacks standing to assert claims for trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(l)(a) and dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) because such actions may be brought only by the registrant and owner of the mark. Midwest argues that as a licensee of the Torc-Pac mark, BCN/Clearing is not a proper party to assert those claims. Midwest apparently concedes that BCN/Clearing has standing as a licensee to assert a claim for unfair competition in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1). See Frisch’s Rests., Inc. v. Elby’s Big Boy of Steubenville, Inc., 670 F.2d 642, 649 (6th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). Section 32 of the Lanham Act, which governs
holding that the plaintiff an exclusive licensee of the mark had standing to bring a claim under  43a holding that the remedies are exclusive holding that plaintiff had standing to bring a rico conspiracy claim despite his inability to bring a substantive rico claim holding that the rico bar applies even where the plaintiff does not have standing to bring a securities fraud action holding that an evicted plaintiff has no legal interest in property and therefore has no standing to bring a cercla claim