their family name would have been insufficient to confer standing upon them at the time. Cf. Dovenmuehle v. Gilldorn Mortgage Midwest Corp., 871 F.2d 697, 700-01 (7th Cir.1989) (finding that a family’s asserted interest in retaining control over the use of its surname, separate and apart from the sale of the family business which bore that name, failed to amount to a “reasonable interest” protected under the Lanham Act). 16 . Although the plaintiffs allege that they are bringing their cancellation claims under Sections 14 and 37 of the Lanham Act, see 15 U.S.C. §§ 1064, 1119, the court believes that the former provision only relates to those applications filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to cancel a registered mark. See id. at § 1067; see also Windsurfing, 828 F.2d at 758 (<HOLDING>). As a result, the court only considers the
recognizing that the section does not  authorize suits for cancellation in the district courts holding that 15 usc  1125a does not authorize suits by consumers holding that section 187c does not apply where policy contains no cancellation provision and was not unilaterally cancelable by the insurer holding that rule 11 does not authorize a district court to award appellate attorneys fees due to similar concerns holding that section 5601c does not authorize appeals from juvenile courts transferring a child to district court for criminal proceedings under section 5402 of the family code