have not been related to food products.” 615 F.2d at 259. Defendant presented evidence of extensive use of “A B” in businesses in the Jacksonville area alone. Notably, none of these entries include one representing Plaintiff. As stated in comment g to the Restatement of Torts § 729 (1938), “The greater the number of identical or more or less similar trade-marks already B” is closely identified with Anheuser-Busch, i.e., that the mark has acquired secondary meaning, which would afford it trademark protection. G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 873 F.2d 985, 992 (7th Cir.1989). The mark is merely descriptive, and must be characterized as a weak mark. Id. Generally, courts classify initials as descriptive “if the mark imparts information directly.” 873 F.2d at 996-97 (<HOLDING>). During oral argument, Plaintiff contended
holding void shares issued in excess of the amount of common shares authorized in the articles of incorporation holding that inconsistent advertising of an alleged protected trademark for five years did not establish secondary meaning holding that market shares of defendants could not be aggregated to establish an attempt to monopolize 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 anheuserbusch did not establish that la which describes a characteristic that it shares with other beers of low alcoholic content produced by other brewers was a protectible trademark