Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that a licensee is estopped from contesting the validity of its license. See C.B.C. Distrib. & Mktg., Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P., 505 F.3d 818, 825 (8th Cir. 2007); Sevenr-Up Bottling Co. v. SeveruUp Co., 561 F.2d 1275, 1279 (8th Cir.1977) (“The establishment of an existing licensor-licensee relationship between Company and [licensee] effectively constitutes an insuperable bar to recovery by [licensee] with regard to its trademark claims.”). “The licensee estoppel rule precludes only licensees from a challenge: other parties, even those closely affiliated with the licensee, are not foreclosed.” 3 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 18.63 (4th ed. 2011); see also Papercraft Corp. v. Gibson Greeting Cards, Inc., 515 F.Supp. 727, 728-29 (S.D.N.Y.1981) (<HOLDING>). VantageScore is a limited liability company 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a parent and its wholly owned subsidiary are legally incapable of conspiring with one another (B) holding that parent is liable for acts of subsidiary under agency theory only if parent dominates subsidiary parent of whollyowned subsidiary that had seats on board took part in financing and approved major policy decisions was not liable because parent did not have daytoday control (C) recognizing separate corporate identity of parent despite evidence that parent was alterego of its subsidiary and was being sued for acts of its subsidiary (D) holding parent corporation which controlled litigation on behalf of subsidiary bound by judgment (E) holding that parent corporation was not estopped from challenging mark which licensor had licensed to wholly owned subsidiary which was independent of parent and had separate employees records accounts offices and only one shared officer
Output (English): recognizing separate corporate identity of parent despite evidence that parent was alterego of its subsidiary and was being sued for acts of its subsidiary