this opinion only, and without making any substantive finding thereof, the Marks are both protectable and are protected. Likelihood of causing confusion Regarding the second element, the likelihood of causing confusion, this Circuit normally applies a seven-factor test: “the degree of similarity between the marks in appearance and suggestion; the similarity of the products for which the name is used; the area and manner of concurrent use; the degree of care likely to be exercised by consumers; the strength of the complainant’s mark; actual confusion; and an intent on the part of the alleged infringer to palm off his products as those of another.” McGraw-Edison Co. v. Walt Disney Productions, 787 F.2d 1163, 1167-68 (7th Cir. 1986). In addition, , Inc., 841 F.2d 214, 219 (8th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Sunsport Inc. v. Barclay Leisure Ltd., 984
holding that district court erred by fixing fair market value of restaurant franchise for purposes of awarding damages for breach of contract based on hearsay offer to purchase franchise recognizing a telephone company operating under a franchise agreement as holding a nondelegable duty to the public holding that a hotel was not permitted to use trademarked paraphernalia such as credit card application forms key rings ash trays and shoe shine clothes after its franchise from the company that issued those items had revoked its franchise holding that the continued use of licensed trademark after termination of franchise agreement constituted trademark infringement and breach of contract holding that continued use of trademark after termination of franchise for nonpayment of royalties constitutes lanham act violation