the plaintiff suffered actual injury, such as a loss of sales, profits, or of present value. Resource Developers, Inc. v. Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island, 926 F.2d 134, 139 (2nd Cir.1991); Web Printing Controls Co., Inc. v. Oxy-Dry Corp., 906 F.2d 1202, 1204-05 (7th Cir.1990); PPX Enterprises, Inc. v. Audiofidelity Enterprises, Inc., supra at 271-72. When a plaintiff seeks only injunctive relief, however, it need only prove a likelihood of confu sion among consumers that has resulted from the defendant’s violation. Resource Developers, Inc. v. Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island, supra; Web Printing Controls Co., Inc. v. Oxy-Dry Corp.; PPX Enterprises, Inc. v. Audiofidelity Enterprises, Inc., supra at 271; cf., Black Hills Jewelry Mfg. Co. v. Gold Rush, Inc., 633 F.2d 746, 753 (8th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). Further, where a defendant has engaged in
holding that the defendants reference to the plaintiffs trademark in the metatags of the defendants web page was a violation of trademark law holding that in order to recover damages under the lanham act plaintiff must prove that there was a violation that plaintiff has been damaged and that there is a causal connection between the violation and those damages holding that a plaintiff in a lanham act trademark violation action must demonstrate that the defendants violation tended to deceive consumers holding that continued use of trademark after termination of franchise for nonpayment of royalties constitutes lanham act violation holding that defendants statement that it owned the rights to a trademark did not give rise to a false advertising claim under the lanham act