special presumption exists for licensees. "The likelihood of confusion exists as a matter of law if a licensee continues to use marks owned by the licensor after termination of the license." Bunn-O-Matic Corp. v. Bunn Coffee Serv., Inc., 88 F.Supp.2d 914, 922 (C.D.Ill.2000). The rationale is that "a strong risk of consumer confusion arises when a terminated franchisee continues to use the former franchisor’s trademarks." Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1492 (11th Cir.1983). See also Gorenstein Enterprises, Inc. v. Quality Care-USA, Inc., 874 F.2d 431, 435 (7th Cir.1989) ("Once a franchise has been terminated, the franchisee cannot be allowed to keep on using the trademark."); The Shell Co. (Puerto Rico) Ltd. v. Los Frailes Serv. Station, Inc., 605 F.3d 10, 22 (1st Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); Downtowner/Passport Int’l Hotel Corp. v.
holding that it is no longer essential to show actual disruption if the government shows disruption is likely holding that a gas station who had previously sold shellbrand gasoline but no longer so did was likely to confuse reasonably prudent consumers when it sold nonshell brand fuel without completely obscuring the shell trademarks holding that a court lacks jurisdiction when the issues in a case are no longer live holding that a plaintiff had no injury in fact and consequently no standing when it had no enforceable contract right against the defendant holding that a regulation implementing a statute that was no longer valid did not have a legislative foundation