of confusion is clear. See Grey Computer, 910 F.Supp. at 1088 ("Where, as here, the goods distributed by Defendants are intentional copies and virtually identical to the trademark owner’s goods, likelihood of confusion may be established at the summary judgment stage.”); Microsoft Corp. v. CMOS Technologies, Inc., 872 F.Supp. 1329, 1335 (D.N.J.1994) ("It would be difficult to imagine a clearer case of consumer confusion than the instant case in which the defendants, acting in direct competition with the plaintiff, sold counterfeit products on which plaintiff’s registered marks appear in their entirety. Under these circumstances, the likelihood of consumer confusion, mistake, or deception is clear.”). 12 . Cf. Shakespeare Co. v. Silstar Corp. of Am., 110 F.3d 234, 241 (4th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). 13 . SWC's business records suggest that SWC
holding that it is permissible to use anothers mark truthfully to identify anothers goods or services holding that concurrent use of same mark on similar product was sufficient to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion holding that even several isolated incidents of actual confusion are insufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion recognizing presumption recognizing that where  one  produces counterfeit goods in an apparent attempt to capitalize upon the popularity of and demand for anothers product there is a presumption of a likelihood of confusion