Opinion ID: 3034224
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: M&M III’s Potential Adverse Effects for

Text: Certification Mark Holders Finally, IPC summarizes the arguments of 20 certification mark holders who filed a joint amici curiae brief in support of IPC’s petition for a writ of certiorari in M&M III. The amici’s arguments restate many of IPC’s concerns, with emphasis placed on the increased cost of enforcement M&M III will cause for non-profit and governmental certification mark holders. While it may be true that infringement actions will now cost more because licensees and former licensees will often challenge the validity of the mark in question, the amici’s arguments fail to address or give any weight to the countervailing public policy concern. Allowing certification mark holders to preclude challenges by all individuals who hold or have held a license would remove what appears to be the principal mechanism for ensuring that mark holders abide by their statutory duties. [7] We agree with the district court that M&M III appropriately balanced the relevant public policies in holding no13934 IDAHO POTATO COMMISSION v. G&T TERMINAL challenge provisions in certification mark licenses unenforceable. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err in declining to enforce the no-challenge provision against G&T.