there is a presumption of non-genericness. Liquid Controls, 802 F.2d at 937. This presumption, however, evaporates when the opposing party introduces evidence of genericness, leaving the trademark holder with the ultimate burden of persuasion on the issue of validity. Id. at 936-37. When an incontestable mark is challenged as generic, the alleged infringer may bear the burden of persuasion on that issue. The Ninth Circuit has so held. See Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. Jerry McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1135 (9th Cir.2006) (“[Rjegistered marks are endowed with a strong presumption of validity, and a defendant has the burden of showing gener-icness by a preponderance of the evidence.”). See also KP Permanent Make-Up Inc. v. Lasting Impression I Inc., 408 F.3d 596, 603 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). The law in the Seventh Circuit is less clear.
holding defenses concerning the contract as a whole must be referred to ah arbitrator while defenses to the arbitration provision itself are considered by the court holding that even an incontestable mark is subject to certain defenses or defects such as genericness recognizing the existence of antagonistic defenses does not require severance unless defenses are actually irreconcilable holding that certainty or even likelihood of such an effect is not a requirement holding that the defendant could not raise affirmative defenses initially in its dispositive motion but remanding the case to the trial court to determine if leave to amend answer to incorporate affirmative defenses was appropriate so that the defendant could then properly raise those defenses in its dispositive motion