business. J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, (4th Edition 1997). “Requiring strong evidence to establish an assignment is appropriate both to prevent parties from using self-serving testimony to gain ownership of trademarks and to give parties incentives to identify expressly the ownership of the marks they employ.” TMT North America, Inc. v. Magic Touch, 124 F.3d 876 (7th Cir.1997); McCarthy, supra, § 18:4. A trademark is merely a symbol of goodwill. Thus, goodwill and its trademark symbol are inseparable and cannot be separated without invalidating both. McCarthy, swpra, § 18:2, p. 18-5 (1999); 15 U.S.C. § 1060. A trademark has no significance apart from the goodwill it symbolizes. United Drug Co. v. The Inc., 453 F.Supp. 496, 501-02 (E.D.Va.1978) (<HOLDING>). Section 1060 of the Lanham Act provides the
holding that where property subject to the irss timely filed lien is sold during a nonjudicial sale and the irs is not given notice of the sale the sale of the property is made subject to and without disturbing the lien holding that a company that generated revenue from the sale of its assets remained in business holding that the separate earlier sale of the defunct business tangible assets rendered the later sale of the trademark invalid holding that the debtors were entitled to cure the mortgage arrearage through their chapter 13 plan because the creditors failure to record the sale deed prior to the bankruptcy filing rendered the sale incomplete under state law holding in the analogous context of choiceoflaw in relation to the sale of personal property that compensation for arranging the sale is assessed apart from underlying sale