the EBA. See, e.g., Jackson Dairy, Inc. v. H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc., 596 F.2d 70, 73 (2d Cir.1979) (Mansfield, J., concurring) (noting that there was “nothing in the contract ... for an exclusive distributorship ... that obligates” the manufacturer “to police its customers in other areas or to stop them from selling or transshipping goods”); Subaru Distribs. Corp. v. Subaru of Am., Inc., 425 F.3d 119, 123-24 (2d Cir.2005) (an exclusive distributorship agreement between the sub-distributor and distributor did not obligate the distributor to enforce its own exclusive distributorship agreement with the manufacturer and “prevent” that manufacturer from selling products in the sub-distributor’s territory); see also Parkway Baking Co. v. Freihofer Baking Co., 255 F.2d 641, 644-45 (3d Cir.1958) (<HOLDING>). With no express breach of any provision
recognizing that naming additional distributors in a distributors exclusive territory would constitute impairment holding that 89 sales in 20 years was not the kind of bona fide use intended to afford a basis for trademark protection holding that the remedies are exclusive holding that exercising general jurisdiction over defendant was improper where its actual sales in florida were a small percentage of the total sales and therefore these sales were de minimis  holding that an exclusive license standing alone did not bar sales to a store that would resell the product within the exclusive territory of a different company and noting that there was no restriction against bona fide sales to an independent vendor even with knowledge that some products may be resold into another territory