##   #    #   ##   ###### # #    #  ####     ##### ###### #    # #####
  #  #  ##  ##  #  #      #  # ##   # #    #      #   #       #  #    #
 #    # # ## # #    #    #   # # #  # #           #   #####    ##     #
 ###### #    # ######   #    # #  # # #  ###      #   #        ##     #
 #    # #    # #    #  #     # #   ## #    #      #   #       #  #    #
 #    # #    # #    # ###### # #    #  ####       #   ###### #    #   #
   from the same author that brought you "Remembrance of Things Past."
IT IS MY PLEASURE TO WRITE YOU THIS LETTER IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW ME. HOWEVER, I GOT YOUR NAME THROUGH YOUR COUNTRY BUSSINESS ATTACHEE HERE IN MY SEARCH FOR A RELIABLE AND TRUST WORTHY PERSON THAT CAN HANDLE SUCH A CONFIDENTIAL TRANSACTION OF THIS NAURE.
As any moviegoer can attest, it is not unusual for movie producers to use a signature scene–and the products and props therein–to cultivate interest in a film. Films with car chases do so with cars; films with gunplay do so with firearms; films with haute couture wardrobes do so with clothing. Nothing in the record suggests defendants’ used plaintiff’s marks to imply that plaintiff placed its imprimatur on the film; nowhere in defendants’ publicity efforts is plaintiff’s mark unreasonably displayed or abused. Cf. id. (finding improper a defendant’s use of another’s mark as if it was defendant’s own). Defendants, instead, use the marks and product in a specific and unique descriptive sense: to evoke associations with an iconic child’s toy.