same channels of trade utilizing the same advertising vehicles. Therefore, there is a strong likelihood of confusion as to the source of Defendants’ products. C. Resale of a Genuine Trademarked Product And the Material Difference Exception Defendants’ products are also infringing because they are materially different than TracFone’s genuine Phones. The first sale doctrine does not apply when an alleged infringer sells trademarked goods that are materially different than those sold by the trademark owner. See Davidoff & CIE, S.A. v. PLD Int’l Corp., 263 F.3d 1297, 1301 (11th Cir.2001); Iberia Foods v. Romeo, 150 F.3d 298, 302-3 (3d Cir.1998); Enesco v. Price/Costco Inc., 146 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir.1998) (quoting Warner-Lambert Co. v. Northside Dev. Corp., 86 F.3d 3, 6 (2d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>)); Martin’s Herend Imports, Inc. v. Diamond &
holding that contributory trademark infringement requires some predicate act of infringement holding that to constitute infringement under the doctrine of equivalents the accused product must contain each limitation of the claim or its equivalent holding that a nonconforming product is not genuine and its distribution constitutes trademaik infringement holding that whether a product is within comment k should be determined on a case by case basis where it is shown that the product is unavoidably unsafe and product of exceptional social need holding that plaintiffs infringement claim against defendants laterdeveloped product would be barred by laches and estoppel found applicable to earlier product if subsequent product is equivalent to earlier one under doctrine of equivalents