that the defendant’s use of the trademarked word “Playboy,” without the font or symbols — e.g., the famous Playboy bunny— associated with the trademark, constituted fair use because the use was limited to what was reasonably necessary and no more. 279 F.3d at 802. In the instant case, eBay’s use of the TIFFANY Marks on its website and in its communications to eBay buyers and sellers is similarly limited to the Tiffany name. (See, e.g., Pl.’s Exs. 1158, 1159, 1160, 1161, 1164.) eBay has thus met its burden on this element of the New Kids “it would be unreasonable to assume that [Playboy] currently sponsors or endorses someone who describes herself as a ‘Playboy Playmate of the Year in 1981,’” especially where website included explicit disclaimer); Merck & Co., 425 F.Supp.2d at 414 (<HOLDING>); cf. Courtenay Commc’ns Corp., 334 F.3d at 214
holding that there is nothing improper with defendants purchase of sponsored links when defendants actually sell plaintiffs products  on their website holding that there is nothing improper about the use of a trademark to communicate that goods bearing that mark were actually sold on defendants website holding limited use of a mark did not constitute prior use in commerce sufficient to establish rights in the mark holding that the defendants use of the domain name moviebuffcom violated plaintiffs trademark rights in the mark moviebufp holding that 350 million dollars expended in advertising the mark three billion units bearing the mark having been sold and the units bearing the mark having been sold in all fifty states and throughout the work supported a finding that hot wheels was famous