already enforceable under the Lanham Act. (Id.) Defendant Debtors also allege that UD possesses common law marks appearing on its website, including “THE AROUNDCAMPUS GROUP” and the “AC shield logo design.” (Id. IT 20.) Those marks are apparently not registered but are also alleged to be enforceable under the Lanham Act. (Id.) Defendant Debtors claim that Eli Global or other Defendants created “Around Campus, LLC,” infringing on their trademarks in violation of federal and State law, and more generally “have made actual and continuous use of the registered and unregistered trademarks throughout the United States.” (Id. ¶¶21, 67.) The complaint seeks injunctive relief and damages for. infringement along with attorneys’ fees and costs incurred addressing the tra R. 728, 731 (D.Kan.1986) (<HOLDING>); see also Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc.,
holding that proof of unauthorized use of an original trademark by one whose license to use the trademark had been terminated is sufficient to establish the likelihood of confusion prong 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 the continued use of licensed trademark after termination of franchise agreement constituted trademark infringement and breach of contract holding that contributory trademark infringement requires some predicate act of infringement holding that trademark infringement claim based on unauthorized use of mark entailed material and substan tial consideration of nontitle 11 law