“Lap Traveler” trademark. IPC, of course, is not challenging defendants’ use of the mark “The Mobile Desk” to identify their competing product; instead, IPC is challenging the presence of its trademark, “laptraveler,” in the URL post-domain path of the web page from which defendants are selling the Mobile Desk product. Therefore, in this case, there is a preliminary question about whether defendants are using the challenged mark in a way that identifies the source of their goods. If defendants are only using IPC’s trademark in a “non-trademark” way — that is, in a way that does not identify the source of a product — then trademark infringement and false designation of origin laws do not apply. Cf. New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing, Inc., 971 F.2d 302, 307 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). The evidence shows that a2z did not insert
holding federal copyright laws threeyear statute of limitations not to bar acts of infringement occurring within three years of action despite fact that related earlier acts of infringement were barred holding limited use of a mark did not constitute prior use in commerce sufficient to establish rights in the mark holding that as in an action alleging infringement of a mark likelihood of confusion is the essence of an unfair competition claim holding that the essential wrong of trademark infringement the appropriation of the good will of anothers established mark may be effectively accomplished by advertising matter associating that others distinguishing mark with the product of defendant holding that infringement laws simply do not apply to a nontrademark use of a mark