Finally, eBay has shown that it did not do anything that would suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder. See New Kids on the Block, 971 F.2d at 308. Clearly, “a use is not nominative if it creates a likelihood of confusion about the mark-holder’s affiliation or sponsorship.” Chambers v. Time Warner, No. 00 Civ. 2839(JSR), 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3065, at *10, 2003 WL 749422, at *3, (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2003); see also Dow Jones, 451 F.3d at 308 n. 14; Courtenay Commc’ns Corp. v. Hall, 334 F.3d 210, 214 (2d Cir.2003); Pebble Beach Co. v. Tour 18 I Ltd., 155 F.3d 526, 546 (5th Cir.1998). However, the mere use of a trademarked term to describe something is not enough to suggest sponsorship or endorsement. See Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co., 292 F.3d 1139, 1155 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Playboy Enters., 279 F.3d at 803 (holding
holding that even without explicit disclaimer no endorsement or sponsorship was suggested when there was no evidence in the record that rights holders were associated with the alleged infringers holding that where a defendant sold no stock at all this suggested that there was no insider information from which to benefit and there was not a strong inference of scienter holding that there was no confusion regarding endorsement where the plaintiffs mark was not so closely associated with the plaintiff that any mention would suggest sponsorship or endorsement holding there was no evidence to support the existence of any alleged fiduciary duty holding that there was no basis for a reasonable inference that the defendants were cut in on the drug deal when the record indicated that they were willing to perform the required crewmember services with no special inducement