played a significant role in the bulk purchasing, unlocking, reflashing and reselling the Phones with the Marks intact. 7. Actual Confusion “The law is well settled in this circuit that evidence of actual confusion between trademarks is not necessary to a finding of likelihood of confusion.” E. Remy Martin, 756 F.2d at 1529; Montgomery v. Noga, 168 F.3d 1282, 1302 (11th Cir.1999) (“[W]e have held that a plaintiff is not required to provide evidence of actual confusion in order to prove likelihood of confusion.”). Adopting an identical mark “with the intent of deriving benefit from the reputation of [Plaintiffs mark] may alone be enough to justify the inference that there is confusing similarity.” Am-Brit, 812 F.2d at 1542; see also Int’l Cosmetics Exch., Inc., 303 F.3d at 1248-49 (<HOLDING>); Babbit Electronics, Inc., 38 F.3d at 1179-80
holding that the use of the shoneys name over any subsidiary product line mark  reduces the likelihood of confusion holding that as in an action alleging infringement of a mark likelihood of confusion is the essence of an unfair competition claim holding that concurrent use of same mark on similar product was sufficient to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion holding that since we have already held that the concurrent use of plaintiffs mark by the defendants creates the likelihood of confusion the inescapable conclusion is that there was also irreparable injury holding limited use of a mark did not constitute prior use in commerce sufficient to establish rights in the mark