establish prior use in commerce.” Housing, 1997 WL 349949, at *11. “[S]uch ‘analogous use’ of a mark ‘has consistently been held sufficient ... to establish priority rights as against subsequent users of the same or similar marks,’ as long as the use is ‘open and notorious’ or is ‘of such a nature and extent that the [mark] has become popularized in the public mind.’.” Id. at *12 (internal citations omitted). IHE’s proffered evidence is insufficient to show use in commerce of its marks because the evidence demonstrates no deliberate and continuous actual or analogous use of the marks in the ordinary course of trade. The undisputed facts demonstrate that, over the two-year period in question, IHE’s use of the marks in the provision of services was limited ciete Anonyme, 495 F.2d at 1272 (<HOLDING>). Nor does IHE’s evidence demonstrate use of
holding that the continued use of licensed trademark after termination of franchise agreement constituted trademark infringement and breach of contract 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 recognizing that generic marks are not subject to trademark protection holding that proof of unauthorized use of an original trademark by one whose license to use the trademark had been terminated is sufficient to establish the likelihood of confusion prong holding that 89 sales in 20 years was not the kind of bona fide use intended to afford a basis for trademark protection