a trademark has been “use[d] in commerce.” 15 U.S.C. § 1114(l)(a); see also 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 414 F.3d at 412. In recent years, the question of what Internet usage of trademarks constitutes “use” under the Lanham Act has been extensively litigated. Courts in this Circuit, relying on 1-800 Contacts, have routinely held that the use of a trademark in keywords and metatags, where the use is strictly internal and not communicated to the public, does not constitute “use” under the Lanham Act and thus does not support a Lanham Act claim. See, e.g., 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 414 F.3d at 409 (reversing trial court’s grant of a preliminary injunction against use of plaintiffs mark to trigger pop-up advertising); Site Pro-1 Inc. v. Better Metal, LLC, 506 F.Supp.2d 123, 127-28 (E.D.N.Y.2007) (<HOLDING>); FragranceNet.com, Inc. v. FragranceX.com,
holding that although the underlying action is one for trademark infringement the infringement occurred as a result of the underlying defendants use of the trademark in their advertising holding that the defendants reference to the plaintiffs trademark in the metatags of the defendants web page was a violation of trademark law holding that where neither link to defendants website nor surrounding text mentions plaintiff or plaintiffs trademark there is no trademark infringement in purchasing sponsored link holding that contributory trademark infringement requires some predicate act of infringement holding that the continued use of licensed trademark after termination of franchise agreement constituted trademark infringement and breach of contract