fair use test is that “only so much of the mark or marks may be used as is reasonably necessary to identify the [Fund’s] product or service.” Id. at 308. We explained in New Kids: Thus, a soft drink competitor would be entitled to compare its product to Coca-Cola or Coke, but would not be entitled to use Coca-Cola’s distinctive lettering. See Volkswagenwerk, 411 F.2d at 352 (“Church did not use Volkswagen’s distinctive lettering style or color scheme, nor did he display the encircled ‘VW’ emblem”).... Id. at 308 n. 7. In the present case, there is no allegation that Franklin Mint used any “distinctive lettering” or any particular image of Princess Diana intimately associated with the Fund. See, e.g., Toho Co. v. William Morrow & Co., 33 F.Supp.2d 1206, 1209, 1211 (C.D.Cal.1998) (<HOLDING>). What is “reasonably necessary to identify the
holding that a publisher who used the trademark godzilla as the title of a book about the moviemonster by the same name used more of the mark than was reasonably necessary where the titlewas written in the distinctive lettering style used by the trademark holder and its licensees in their merchandising activities 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 the defendants use of the domain name moviebuffcom violated plaintiffs trademark rights in the mark moviebufp 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 irreparable injury exists in a trademark case when the party seeking the injunction shows that it will lose control over the reputation of its trademark pending trial