the arbitration award as final. As we have said, the underlying policy of Rule 2 — 602(b) is the avoidance of piecemeal appeals. For this reason, the Court of Appeals and this Court have repeatedly cautioned trial judges that, in determining whether Rule 2-602(b) should be invoked, they “should balance the exigencies of the case ... with the policy against piecemeal appeals and then only allow a separate appeal in the very infrequent harsh case.” Diener, 266 Md. at 556, 295 A.2d 470 (emphasis added); accord Planning Bd. of Howard Co. v. Mortimer, 310 Md. 639, 648, 530 A.2d 1237 (1987) (stating that invocation of Rule 2-602(b) is for the “exceptional case,” and that “[t]he exercise of discretion ... should not be routinely exercised”); Canterbury, 66 Md.App. at 649, 505 A.2d 858 (<HOLDING>). See also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Angeletti, 71
holding that same likelihood of confusion test applied in the context of trademarks also applies to certification marks recognizing confusion caused by prima facie language recognizing that the supreme court has referred to the policy of avoiding piecemeal litigation as by far the most important colorado river factor holding that treaties involving indian tribes are to be construed so far as possible in the sense in which the indians understood them  recognizing that a strong policy consideration against certification has always been to prevent piecemeal appeals as far as possible and to avoid thereby the confusion delay and expense which would be caused by having two or more appeals in the same suit