1. Whether, under the Lanham Act, a court or jury may find joint ownership of a trademark between competing entities—neither of which pleaded or proved co-ownership—without violating the fundamental principle that a trademark must indicate a single source of goods or services to consumers.

2. Whether a party that does not object to a verdict sheet that includes "both" as a potential response to the question of ownership has waived the legal argument that joint ownership of a trademark by two entities that compete in the same market, without any guardrails to protect against consumer confusion, violates the Lanham Act.

3. Whether the district court was required to instruct the jury to consider which entity used the trademark in a source-identifying way, and whether the district court erred by instructing the jury to consider the scope of Amanda Berman's employment but failing to instruct the jury that a purported transfer of trademark rights via a naked or oral license effects an abandonment.

Whether a court may find joint ownership of a trademark between competing entities without violating the Lanham Act's requirement of a single source of goods or services