Seller use the oem trademarks with it running after the trademark last.

　　One of the first cases to look at the user of oem trademarks in the aftermarket context was elecs. Corp. of am. V. Honeywell, inc., 428 F. 2D 191 (1st cir. 1970).

　　Brand name only.

　　PracticeS Were Unlawful, namely, its used of deficectively similar passing, imitative numeric designations, and masking ppi as the true of its goods.

　　The trademark owner.

　　, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 2176 (D. Colo. 2010).

　　Compatability, or when aftermarket sellers adopting deceptively similar passing or numeric designations, counts very well well find likelihood of confusion.

　　Conspicuous disclaimers.

　　Product Configuration Trademark Registrys for "Structural Parts" of Automobiles, Including:

　　Could the Inconstable Product Configuration Registrations Block Aftermarket PRODUCTS and THEREBY GIVE AUTOMAKERS A Virtual Monopoly on AfterMarmarket Replacement Parts?

　　) WERE Infringed by An Aftermarket Seller’s Use of the Identical Grille Design for ITS Form-Fitting Grille COVERS.

　　That Courts Would Re-Visit the functionality Question in an ENFORCEMENT ACTION SINCE Even Incontestable Product Configuration TRADEMARKS MAY BE Involution OFUNDS Off

　　But Certainly May IDentify The Source of the Overall Vehicle.

　　) Courts Will Not Find Likely Confusion.

　　In the Aftermarket Context Based on Consumer Expectations and UNDERSTANDINGAT MOLDED CASE PARTS Manufacture MAFTERMARKET Parts.