use on different kinds of goods, the less is the likelihood of confusion____” Even ownership of well-known marks has not precluded other uses of the mark, e.g., Scott Paper Co. v. Scott’s Liquid Gold, Inc., 589 F.2d 1225 (3rd Cir.1978) (plaintiffs ownership of the mark “Scott” as applied to paper products did not preclude defendant’s use of “Scott” on furniture polish); Amstar, 615 F.2d at 260 (notoriety of “Domino Sugar” did not preclude defendant’s use of “Domino’s Pizza”). Trademark law provides the greatest protection to strong and distinctive service-marks. Freedom Savings and Loan Ass’n, 757 F.2d at 1182. There is nothing particularly distinctive about plaintiffs mark “A B.” See American Optical Corp. v. American Olean Tile Co., 1974 WL 20261,185 U.S.P.Q. 405, 409 (S.D.N.Y.1974) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff has presented little evidence that
holding limited use of a mark did not constitute prior use in commerce sufficient to establish rights in the mark recognizing tjhere is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case holding that infringement laws simply do not apply to a nontrademark use of a mark holding no infringement on mark ao because the initials are letters in the alphabet available for use by everyone  and tjhere is nothing about those initials to conjure up instantaneously the plaintiff american optical co holding that there is nothing improper about the use of a trademark to communicate that goods bearing that mark were actually sold on defendants website