Cir.1984) (finding willful infringement where the defendant sold genuine Sealy mattresses together with non-Sealy foundations); Singer Mfg. Co. v. Briley, 207 F.2d 519 (5th Cir.1953) (sale of reconditioned trademarked goods with no mention that the product was reconditioned constitutes trademark infringement); Joy Manu. Co. v. CGM Valve & Gauge Co., Inc., 730 F.Supp. 1387 (S.D.Tex.1989) (finding intentional infringement where the defendant used unauthorized nameplates bearing plaintiffs mark on valves that defendant refurbished to look like new, but failed to indicate them as used or reconditioned). For example, reselling products with inferior warranties also constitutes a material difference. See Perkins School for the Blind v. Maxi-Aids, Inc., 274 F.Supp.2d 319, 324 (E.D.N.Y.2003) (<HOLDING>); Movado Group, Inc. v. Matagorda Ventures,
holding that the continued use of licensed trademark after termination of franchise agreement constituted trademark infringement and breach of contract holding that although the underlying action is one for trademark infringement the infringement occurred as a result of the underlying defendants use of the trademark in their advertising holding that plaintiff asserted a valid trademark infringement claim where defendant sold genuine perkins braillers products with an inferior warranty holding that contributory trademark infringement requires some predicate act of infringement recognizing nominative fair use as an affirmative defense to trademark infringement