name therefore would attract potential customers based on the reputation built up by Steinway in this country for many years. The harm to Steinway in short is the likelihood that potential piano purchasers will think that there is some connection between the Grotrian-Steinweg and Steinway pianos. Id. Similarly, Suntree is not suggesting that the City allowed EcoSense’s baffle boxes to be installed thinking that they were actually Suntree’s product. However, unlike the trademarks at issue in Grotnan, this is not a case where EcoSense’s mark was so similar to Suntree’s mark that the consumer would initially become interested in EcoSense’s product because it mistakenly thought the product was manufactured by Suntree. EcoSense’s and Suntree’s c., 425 F.3d 211, 231-32 (3d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); c.f. Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc., 600 F.3d
holding that fair use is an affirmative defense holding that nominative fair use is an affirmative defense to a prima facie case of likelihood of confusion similar to the fair use defense recognizing nominative fair use as an affirmative defense to trademark infringement holding that the nominative fair use factors replace the traditional sleekcraft factors for likelihood of confusion where nominative fair use is at issue recognizing the underlying principles of nominative fair use