Inc., 412 F.3d at 385. SPI contends that ELIT is a coined term without any English meaning and that the ELIT Marks are thus fanciful and entitled to maximum protection under the Lanham Act. But a coined term is not a “fanciful” one merely because it cannot be found in Webster’s Third. To the contrary, “[a] slight misspelling of a word will not generally turn a descriptive word into a nondescriptive mark.” 2 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition '§ 11:31 (4th ed.). “If the misspelling is so phonetically identical to the original descriptive term that buyers will recognize it as descriptive, then the misspelled mark is still ’descriptive.’ ” Id.; see also Standard Paint Co. v. Trinidad Asphalt Mfg. Co., 220 U.S. 446, 455, 31 S.Ct. 456, 55 L.Ed. 536 (1911) (<HOLDING>). Thus, “C-Thru” has been held descriptive in
holding that the continued use of licensed trademark after termination of franchise agreement constituted trademark infringement and breach of contract 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 the defendants reference to the plaintiffs trademark in the metatags of the defendants web page was a violation of trademark law holding that a trademark in ruberoid  a misspelling of rubberoid  was descriptive and did not become  arbitrary by being misspelled holding that irreparable injury exists in a trademark case when the party seeking the injunction shows that it will lose control over the reputation of its trademark pending trial