of the Zohar Funds and Patriarch, IMG Brands and DCF continued to sell Products beyond the December 31, 2008 termination date of the License Agreement. (Countercl. ¶ 196.) Although such conduct would normally constitute trademark infringement, the License Agreement provided that, following termination of the agreement, IMG Brands could continue to sell Products for an additional 135 days. See Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream Co. v. D & L Ice Cream Co., Inc., 576 F.Supp. 1055, 1060 (E.D.N.Y.1983) (“[T]he continued use by the defendants of a licensed trademark after the Franchise Agreement had been terminated constitutes ... trademark infringement as well as a breach of contract.”); see also Romacorp, Inc. v. TR Acquisition Corp., No. 93 Civ. 5394, 1993 WL 497969 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 1993) (<HOLDING>). Lastly, to the extent Houbigant alleges
holding that proof of unauthorized use of an original trademark by one whose license to use the trademark had been terminated is sufficient to establish the likelihood of confusion prong holding that continued use of trademark after termination of franchise for nonpayment of royalties constitutes lanham act violation holding that a plaintiff in a lanham act trademark violation action must demonstrate that the defendants violation tended to deceive consumers holding that the continued use of licensed trademark after termination of franchise agreement constituted trademark infringement and breach of contract holding that defendants statement that it owned the rights to a trademark did not give rise to a false advertising claim under the lanham act