Tolkien Enterprises suggests is appropriate here. Tolkien Enterprises argues for an absolutist reading of precedent, citing this court’s ruling that naked licensing is “inherently deceptive and constitutes abandonment of any rights to the trademark.” See First Interstate, 1990 WL 300321, at *3. However, to zero in on this language alone is to lose the benefits of context in an attempt to infer a broad rule about the effects of naked licensing. The context of Tolkien Enterprises’s supporting case law reveals that the cases cited stand only for the proposition that a claimant may not advance an infringement claim after granting a naked license to his mark. See id.; Pa. Dutch Co., Inc. v. Pa. Amish Co., Inc., 1974 WL 20223 (Pa.Com. Pl. Aug.26, 1974). See also Barcamerica, 289 F.3d at 589 (<HOLDING>); Halo Mgmt., LLC v. Interland, Inc., 2004 WL
holding that contributory trademark infringement requires some predicate act of infringement holding in a patent infringement case that plaintiff lacked standing where it held a conditional right to license a patent and enforce license agreements but did not have the right to transfer the patent holding that the government could not be precluded from raising the express license in the instant infringement suit on the basis of the commissioners earlier decision because the commissioner did not have authority under executive order 10096 to consider the express license holding that claimant may not pursue infringement claim after issuing naked license holding grant of naked license to be a fraud on the public and unlawful