of § 1064(5)(C); (3) the IPC imposes certification standards other than those that the certification mark is registered to certify in violation of § 1064(5)(D); and (4) the IPC discriminately refuses to certify potatoes that meet the standards for certification, also in violation of § 1064(5)(D). All of these challenges implicate the public interest in maintaining a free market for the certified product unaffected by the possible competing economic interests of the certification mark owner. We believe these public interests are more substantial and more likely to be harmed if M & M is not allowed to press its claims than the public interests and de minimis harm alleged in the trademark-related cases that upheld contractual no-challenge provisions. See, e.g., Beer Nuts, 477 F.2d at 329 (<HOLDING>); T & T Mfg., 587 F.2d at 539 (holding
recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public recognizing the public interest exception holding that general statement of intent does not override plain language of statute holding that public interest in guarding against depletion of general vocabulary insufficient to override contract law holding that the owner of an equitable interest in property in the form of a land contract can grant a mortgage on that interest under ohio law