confusion; (5) marketing channels used; (6) likely degree of purchaser care; (7) defendant’s intent in selecting the mark; and (8) likelihood of expansion of the product lines. Wendt, 125 F.3d at 812 (applying AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir.1979)). This list of factors is not exhaustive and is not intended to be applied as a “mechanistic formula.” Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394, 1404 (citations and internal marks omitted), cert, dismissed, Penguin Books USA, Inc. v. Dr. Seuss Enterprises, — U.S. -, 1 be resolved as a matter of law on summary judgment where “the court is satisfied that the products or marks are so dissimilar that no question of fact is presented.” Pirone v. Mac-Millan, Inc., 894 F.2d 579, 584 (2d Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted); see also, Carson v.
holding that the defendants reference to the plaintiffs trademark in the metatags of the defendants web page was a violation of trademark law recognizing protection against appropriation for the defendants advantage of the plaintiffs name or likeness holding commercial use of photographs of babe ruth did not indicate origin or make representation of sponsorship and grantingsummary judgment for defendants where plaintiff devisees essentially asserted trademark in babe ruths image and likeness holding that the continued use of licensed trademark after termination of franchise agreement constituted trademark infringement and breach of contract holding that a consent judgment is essentially a contract