of the Lanham Act need not own a registered trademark. Stanfield v. Osborne Indus., Inc., 52 F.3d 867, 873 (10th Cir.1995). Instead, when a claim is based on a false association claim — as in this case — in order to have standing, the plaintiff must “have a reasonable interest to be protected” such as a plaintiff “with a commercial interest in the product wrongfully identified with another’s mark, ... or with a commercial interest in the misused mark.” Id. (citations omitted). The statute grants standing to “any person who believes that he or she is likely to be damaged” by the prohibited conduct. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). The Court concludes that this language confers standing on trademark licensees. See, e.g., Quabaug Rubber Co. v. Fabiano Shoe Co., Inc., 567 F.2d 154, 160 (1st Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>). The Second Amended Complaint and Distributor
holding that defendants incorporation of plaintiffs computer product into its own cdrom product could constitute claim under 15 usc  1125a holding that licensee was not estopped from challenging the validity of a trademark holding that the statute of limitations for all of plaintiffs eleven causes of action including those brought under lanham act  43a 15 usc  1125a and lanham act  43c 15 usc  1125c is four years holding that licensee was not a registrant exclusive licensee or assignee of trademark but still had standing to assert false designation claim under 15 usc  1125a holding that assignee of rtc could not assert exemption from tia