§ 1125(c)(1). The finding of a mark as famous is “a rigorous standard, as it extends protection only to highly distinctive marks that are well-known throughout the country.” Green v. Fornario, 486 F.3d 100, 105 (3d Cir. 2007). Plaintiffs “Mastermind” mark is not famous because as the Court discussed above, it is merely descriptive without secondary meaning. Plaintiff has failed to show that “Mastermind” is “widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services” of the mark Plaintiff owns. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1). While Plaintiff alleges he has used the mark for nearly eighteen years, Plaintiff fails to show the extent and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of the mark. See Jada Toys, Inc., 518 F.3d at 635 (<HOLDING>). Additionally, Plaintiff provided the Court
holding limited use of a mark did not constitute prior use in commerce sufficient to establish rights in the mark holding that the issue presented by a composite mark consisting of personal names is what the purchasing publie would think when confronted with the mark as a whole holding that 350 million dollars expended in advertising the mark three billion units bearing the mark having been sold and the units bearing the mark having been sold in all fifty states and throughout the work supported a finding that hot wheels was famous holding that there is nothing improper about the use of a trademark to communicate that goods bearing that mark were actually sold on defendants website holding that the essential wrong of trademark infringement the appropriation of the good will of anothers established mark may be effectively accomplished by advertising matter associating that others distinguishing mark with the product of defendant