“famous.” Several courts, too, have recognized that PEI’s marks are both strong and valuable. E.g., Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Chuckleberry Pub., Inc., 687 F.2d 563, 566 (2d Cir.1982); Frena, 839 F.Supp. at 1560-61. This Court agrees with the reasoning of the Frena court that the Playboy trademarks are distinctive and should be afforded a high degree of protection. See id. at 1559-60. Nevertheless, the Court finds no significant likelihood of confusion to be present in this case. PEI presents no evidence of actual confusion by Webbworld subscribers or others. See Moore Business Forms, Inc. v. Ryu, 960 F.2d 486, 491 (5th Cir.1992) (“Evidence of actual confusion is often the best evidence of likelihood of confusion.”); Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 263 (5th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899, 101 S.Ct. 268, 66
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 trademark infringement under michigan common law is governed by the likelihood of confusion standard holding that contributory trademark infringement requires some predicate act of infringement holding that actual confusion though not required is the best evidence supporting trademark infringement