单选题 X. (Intellectual Properties) In cases where a nominative fair use defense is raised, we ask whether (1) the product was “readily identifiable” without use of the mark; (2) defendant used more of the mark than necessary; or (3) defendant falsely suggested he was sponsored or endorsed by the trademark holder. This test “evaluates the likelihood of confusion in nominative use cases.” It’s designed to address the risk that nominative use of the mark will inspire a mistaken belief on the part of consumers that the speaker is sponsored or endorsed by the trademark holder. The third factor speaks directly to the risk of such confusion, and the others do so indirectly: Consumers may reasonably infer sponsorship or endorsement if a company uses an unnecessary trademark or “more” of a mark than necessary. But if the nominative use satisfies the three factor New Kids test, it doesn’t infringe. If the nominative use does not satisfy all the New Kids factors, the district court may order defendants to modify their use of the mark so that all three factors are satisfied; it may not enjoin nominative use of the mark altogether. The district court enjoined the Tabaris from using “any TTT domain name, service mark, trademark, trade name, meta tag or other commercial indication of origin that includes the mark LEXUS.” A trademark injunction, particularly one involving nominative fair use, can raise serious First Amendment concerns because it can interfere with truthful communication between buyers and sellers in the marketplace. Accordingly, “we must ensure that the injunction is tailored to eliminate only the specific harm alleged.” To uphold the broad injunction entered in this case, we would have to be convinced that consumers are likely to believe a site is sponsored or endorsed by a trademark holder whenever the domain name contains the string of letters that make up the trademark. In performing this analysis, our focus must be on the “ ‘reasonably prudent consumer’ in the marketplace”. The relevant marketplace is the online marketplace, and the relevant consumer is a reasonably prudent consumer accustomed to shopping online; the kind of consumer who is likely to visit the Tabaris’ website when shopping for an expensive product like a luxury car. Unreasonable, imprudent and inexperienced webshoppers are not relevant. The injunction here is plainly overbroad— as even Toyota’s counsel grudgingly conceded at oral argument—because it prohibits domain names that on their face dispel any confusion as to sponsorship or endorsement.

单选题 The 3-factor test for nominative fair use is NOT designed to ( )

单选题 Consumers may reasonably infer sponsorship or endorsement because ( )

单选题 From the underlined sentence, one can infer that ( )

单选题 Which of the following is NOT necessary for the court to uphold the broad injunction made by the lower court? ( )