Whether a plaintiff in a trademark enforcement action must prove that each use of its mark meets Section 45 of the Lanham Act's 'use in commerce' definition before that use can be considered in the likelihood of confusion analysis

QUESTION PRESENTED In an action for trademark infringement under Section 32 or unfair competition under Section 43 of the Lanham Act, the plaintiff is required to demonstrate that (a) it has a protectable ownership interest in its mark and (b) that, without its consent, the defendant used the plaintiffs mark in commerce in such a way that is likely to cause consumer confusion. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1), 1125(a)(1). Nothing in either section requires the plaintiff to make a separate, threshold showing concerning the specific uses the plaintiff has made of its mark before those uses may be considered in the likelihood of confusion analysis. The question presented is: Whether a plaintiff in a trademark enforcement action must prove that each use of its mark meets Section 45 of the Lanham Act’s “use in commerce” definition before that use can be considered in the likelihood of confusion analysis.