to the merits was only applicable to Majestic. 6 . A number of district court cases in this circuit have also applied this rule. See Times Mirror Magazines, Inc. v. Field & Stream Licenses Co., 103 F.Supp.2d 711, 738 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ("In the absence of significant injury to the consuming public, a party entering into a settlement agreement with respect to a trademark will be held to its contract.”); Marshak v. Green, 505 F.Supp. 1054, 1060-61 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) ("Courts adhere to traditional common-law contract principles even in trademark cases as long as holding a party to his obligations is not inconsistent with the public policy of preventing confusion and de ception as to the origin of goods or services.”); Peyrat v. L.N. Renault & Sons, Inc., 247 F.Supp. 1009, 1014 (S.D.N.Y.1965) (<HOLDING>). 7 . The IPC also briefly contends that a
holding that although parties to a trademark controversy may contract between themselves for any legal purpose those contracts are only enforceable so long as no injury is caused to the public holding that a forum selection clause was not enforceable against defendants that were not parties to the contract holding that an indemnity provision need not be valid and enforceable to trigger obligations under the contract so long as the parties agreed to indemnity holding that an agreement in violation of antitrust laws may be enforceable where the parties underlying conduct is legal 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