are entirely different and could not be confused. See Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Entm’t Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1054 (9th Cir.1999) (“Where the two marks are entirely dissimilar, there is no likelihood-of-confusion.... Nothing further need be said.”). Moreover, Derrico merely used Sun-tree’s mark to truthfully refer to Suntree’s own product. Such use is not confusing “because it does not imply sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder.” New Kids on the Block v. News Am. Publ’g, Inc., 971 F.2d 302, 308 (9th Cir.1992). In fact, many circuits have held that “[s]uch nominative use of a mark ... lies outside the strictures of trademark law.” Id.; see also Bd. of Supervisors for La. State Univ. Agric. & Mech. Coll. v. Smack Apparel Co., 550 F.3d 465, 488 (5th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. LendingTree,
holding limited use of a mark did not constitute prior use in commerce sufficient to establish rights in the mark 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 the fair use defense is available only so long as such use does not lead to customer confusion as to the source of the goods or services holding that it is permissible to use anothers mark truthfully to identify anothers goods or services recognizing that where  one  produces counterfeit goods in an apparent attempt to capitalize upon the popularity of and demand for anothers product there is a presumption of a likelihood of confusion