Inc v Doebler, 442 F3d 812, 823 (CA 3, 2006), quoting an earlier version of McCarthy, Trademarks & Unfair Competition (alteration in the original). Stated another way, naked licensing also involves “allowing others to use the mark without exercising ‘reasonable control over the nature and quality of the goods, services, or business on which the [mark] is used by the licensee’.” Eva’s Bridal, 639 F3d at 789 (citation omitted) (alteration in original). A mark holder that engages in naked licensing thus destroys its mark — it is no longer able to serve as a meaningful source identifier to consumers and accordingly loses its significance as a mark — and the protections afforded to actual marks under the Lanham Act. FreecycleSunnyvale v Freecycle Network, 626 F3d 509, 516 (CA 9, 2010) (<HOLDING>) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see
holding that the defendants reference to the plaintiffs trademark in the metatags of the defendants web page was a violation of trademark law holding that naked licensing is inherently deceptive and constitutes abandonment of any rights to the trademark by the licensor holding that proof of unauthorized use of an original trademark by one whose license to use the trademark had been terminated is sufficient to establish the likelihood of confusion prong holding that the continued use of licensed trademark after termination of franchise agreement constituted trademark infringement and breach of contract holding grant of naked license to be a fraud on the public and unlawful