dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the opinion of my learned colleagues. I agree that the majority has correctly identified the issue in this case, i.e., what constitutes “use” sufficient to establish a common law trademark. Because, however, I believe there are genuine issues of material fact which preclude entry of summary judgment on this record, I would reverse the summary judgment of the district court. I write also to clarify the process by which district courts should resolve common law trademark disputes.
LTI moved for summary judgment of Counts I through V of LIM’s September 12, 1996 Complaint. In those counts, LIM alleges violations of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act and common law trademark infringement. To establish a claim of common law trademark infringement, one must prove (1) it is the owner in the relevant area of a mark that is distinctive and protectable, and (2) that the defendant’s actions cause a likelihood of confu*319sion. See e.g., Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Products, Inc., 930 F.2d 277, 291 (3d Cir.1991). The elements of a section 43(a) violation are similar. See Paddington Corp. v. Attiki Importers & Distributors, Inc., 996 F.2d 577, 582 (2d Cir.1993).
The primary issue in this appeal is whether LIM has used the “LUCENT” mark in a manner sufficient to confer ownership rights. In granting summary judgment to LTI in this case, the district court determined that no trier of fact could find that LIM had “used” the “LUCENT” mark to a degree sufficient to obtain common law trademark rights. In addressing that issue, the district court first looked to the standard of “use” traditionally applied to common law trademarks and then looked to the standards set forth in Natural Footwear Ltd. v. Hart, Schaffner & Marx, 760 F.2d 1383, 1398-99 (3d Cir.1985). While I agree with the former approach, I do not agree with the latter. Thus, I also disagree with the majority’s exclusive rebanee on the test set forth in Natural Foohvear to determine the threshold issue of use sufficient to obtain a common law trademark.
A. Standard of “Use” under Common Law Trademark Law
It is a well-established principle of trademark law that the exclusive right to a distinctive mark belongs to the party which first uses the mark in connection with its particular line of business. McLean v. Fleming, 96 U.S. (6 Otto) 245, 24 L.Ed. 828 (1877); Ford Motor Co., 930 F.2d at 292. This first actual use in commerce, however, must be “deliberate and continuous, not sporadic, casual or transitory.” La Societe Anonyme des Parfums le Galion v. Jean Patou, Inc., 495 F.2d 1265, 1272 (2d Cir.1974) (Friendly, Cir. J.). Indeed, the right to use a mark exclusively is akin to’ a monopoly which derives from “its appropriation and subsequent use in the marketplace. The user who first appropriates the mark obtains an enforceable right to exclude others from using it, as long as the initial appropriation and use are accompanied by an intention to continue exploiting the mark commercially.” Id. It is axiomatic that if there is “no trade— no trademark.” Id. at 1274.
The Lanham Act provides that “use” is “the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a mark ... a mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce ... on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce.” 15 U.S.C. § 1127. Although this standard of use applies to the amount of use required to achieve statutory trademark rights and may be lower than, the “use” needed to obtain a common law trademark, see Zazu Designs v. L’Oreal, S.A., 979 F.2d 499, 503-04 (7th Cir.1992), that standard is instructive with respect to common law trademarks. See, Zazu Designs, 979 F.2d at 509 (Cudahy, Cir. J., dissenting); Societe de Developments Et D'Innovations des Marches Agricoles et Alimentaires-Sodima-Union de Cooperatives Agricoles v. International Yogurt Co., Inc., 662 F.Supp. 839, 853 (D.Or.1987) (noting that “use in commerce required for obtaining a federal registration is generally congruous with the required use of a mark for obtaining ownership under the common law.”).
Traditionally, ownership of a trademark accrues when goods bearing the mark are “sold, displayed for sale or otherwise publicly distributed.” Blue Bell v. Farah Manufacturing Co., Inc., 508 F.2d 1260, 1265 (5th Cir.1975). Indeed, to estabbsh prior use for a common law mark, distribution of the mark need not be wide-spread, but it must be of a public nature and more than de minimis. Allard Enterprises, Inc. v. Advanced Programming Resources, Inc., 146 F.3d 350 (6th Cir.1998); Kathreiner’s Malzkaffee Fabriken Mit Beschraenkter Haftung v. Pastor Kneipp Medicine Co., 82 F. 321 (7th Cir.1897) (common law rights obtained by foreign company which had sent five test shipments to companies and individuals in the *320United States). Actual sales are not necessary to establish prior use and extensive advertising alone may in some cases be sufficient to establish a common law trademark right. See WarnerVision Entertainment Inc. v. Empire of Carolina Inc., 915 F.Supp. 639, 645 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd in part and rev’d in part, 101 F.3d 259 (2d Cir.1996).
The Sixth Circuit’s recent decision in Allard Enterprises, Inc. v. Advanced Programming Resources, Inc., 146 F.3d 350 (6th Cir.1998) is instructive on the application of the common law standard of “use.” In Allard, the defendants began using the contested mark in 1989 in connection with its employee placement business. Defendants were not very successful and had no revenue prior to the relevant date, March 1994. Beginning in 1991, howevef, the defendants engaged in individualized attempts to place employees at large companies and contacted several large companies to inform them of its business. In 1993 and 1994, the defendants tried to place several employees with large companies with little success. In this regard, defendants sent a fax with two resumes to the company Lane Bryant. Defendants also sent a promotional mailing to 100 potential customers on March 30, 1994.
The Court of Appeals, affirmed the district court’s conclusion that defendants’ conduct prior to March 1994, though not extensive or profitable, was sufficiently public to warrant common law trademark rights. The Sixth Circuit held that “[a]s long as there is a genuine use of the mark in commerce, ..., ownership may be established even if the first uses are not extensive and do not result in deep market penetration or widespread recognition.” Id. at 358 (emphasis added). Relying on the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Blue Bell, the court went on to hold that “such use need not have gained wide public recognition, and even a single use in trade may sustain trademark rights if followed by continuous commercial utilization.” Id. (internal citations omitted); see Blue Bell, 508 F.2d at 1265.
Ultimately the Court of Appeals based its conclusion that the defendants had “used” the mark sufficiently on (a) defendants’ attempt to complete genuine commercial transactions, (b) the commercial nature of their attempts which need not have “achieved wide public recognition” of the mark and (c) the consistent and continuous, though not high-volume, use of the mark. The court relied specifically upon the fact that the defendants had used the mark “on at least one fax, on at least one resume, and in numerous [oral] solicitations.” Allard, 146 F.3d at 359. The court further determined that although defendant’s word-of-mouth advertisement campaign might not be preferred “it is not so atypical that no reasonable person could view it as ‘commercial.’ ” Id. at 358. The Sixth Circuit remanded the case for a finding of the area in which the defendants had continuously used their mark prior to plaintiffs registration.
Given the aforementioned standard of “use” applicable to a common law trademark, as exemplified in Allard, there are on this record genuine issues of material fact which preclude entry of judgment in favor of LTI. Here, a trier of fact may conclude that LIM had used the “LU-CENT” mark sufficiently to obtain common law trademark rights. Specifically, LIM had not lain dormant prior to November 30, 1995. Rather, in August and September of 1995, soon after its inception, LIM began its marketing efforts. At that time, LIM hired a graphic designer to develop a logo, letterhead, business cards and other assorted documents such as messages, message pads, labels and brochures. LIM’s marketing materials included a folder holding documents from manufacturers and software producers containing labels which identified LIM as the source of the products.
On September 5, 1995, Mr. Feinstein, one of LIM’s principals, wrote a letter on the letterhead of another of his companies, *321Corporate Consultants, which introduced LIM, by name, and the services it provided. The letter was sent to between approximately 25-50 people: clients of Corporate Consultants and other contacts Mr. Feinstein viewed as potential customers. That letter referred to the services LIM was providing and specifically associated the “LUCENT” mark with those services; “The name Lucent was selected after extensive study and with various database searches. It is a derivation of translucent and well describes our mission of providing light, clarity, and guidance in a new and exciting field.” (Sept. 5,1995 Letter).
Beginning in October 1995, LIM entered into several distributorship agreements with hardware and software companies which authorized it to resell those companies’ products. For example, in October 1995 LIM entered into a contract permitting LIM to resell File Magic software, as well as a contract with Tech Data. LIM’s principals also attended an exposition in October 1995, sponsored by Imaging World Magazine, at which LIM was registered by its name and the attending LIM principals wore badges that bore the company name.
In November 1995, LIM received its business cards and letterhead from the printers and LIM’s principals began distributing extensively their business cards, bearing the “LUCENT” mark, as a means of advertisement. In the Fall of 1995, LIM also directed its marketing efforts at prospects through personal solicitations via mail, phone and personal meetings. LIM, however, did not engaged in any public or paid advertising but its employees discussed business with virtually everyone they came in contact with.
Ultimately, LIM made sales presentations to three companies prior to November 30, 1995, the date on which LTI filed its Intent to Use the “LUCENT” mark. The present records establish that on November 3, 1995 LIM made a presentation to ARAMARK in Philadelphia, on November 17, 1995 LIM made a presentation to NBC in New York, on November 21, 1995 LIM made its first of several presentations to Nixon Uniform in Delaware. Although LIM’s initial contact with Nixon Uniform was through a personal friend, the solicitation letter and LIM’s presentation was made to another Nixon Uniform employee with whom LIM had no prior connection.
Although LIM used various marketing techniques, it made only two sales prior to December 1, 1995. Specifically, on October 5, 1995 for $323.50 LIM installed a modem for the Israel Bonds Office in Philadelphia and provided related training. LIM’s contact at the Israel Bonds Office was a friend of one of LIM’s principals. LIM provided the Israel Bonds Office with an invoice on a pre-printed LIM form though payment was directed to Mr. Armstrong, one of LIM’s principals. In addition to LIM’s sale to the Israel Bonds Office, on October 17, 1995 LIM took an order from Corporate Consultants, Mr. Feinstein’s company with whom LIM shared office space. The services rendered to Corporate Consultants included: network servers, network fax software, SCSI cards, scanners, and other peripherals as well as consultation services on the design of their document imaging system beginning on November 12,1995.1
At the summary judgment stage, a court may not weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations — these tasks are left to the fact-finder. Petruzzi’s IGA v. Darling-Delaware, 998 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir.1993). I am also mindful that summary judgment motions in this area of the law should be analyzed carefully because *322the disposition of trademark disputes are factually driven, Scott Paper Co. v. Scott’s Liquid Gold, Inc., 589 F.2d 1225, 1231 (3d Cir.1978) and the “right granted to the owner of a registered trademark is a monopoly and should not be extended unless the owner is clearly entitled thereto,” S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Johnson, 266 F.2d 129, 136 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 820, 80 S.Ct. 65, 4 L.Ed.2d 65 (1959).
Here, the court’s grant of summary judgment to LTI grants LTI a monopoly to use the “LUCENT” mark without proof that it is clearly entitled to it. LIM’s conduct prior to November 30, 1995 provides a basis upon which a trier of fact may determine that LIM had “used” the “LUCENT” mark to the degree necessary to show priority of use and ownership. Only a trier of fact making credibility determinations upon a fuller record can ultimately determine whether LIM’s intentional and continuous marketing strategy, three sales presentations, participation in a trade show, distributorship contracts and sales were sufficient to establish a common law trademark right. Though there are facts in the record which detract from LIM’s early uses, such as LIM’s statement in its trademark application that its first sale was in 1996, weighing such evidence is inappropriate at this time. A trier of fact may ultimately wfeigh this against LIM and conclude that its prior sales were not public enough to achieve a common law trademark. This is not for the court to decide on summary judgment.
The district court’s summary conclusion that “the letters and presentations were not extensive enough to satisfy the standard of ‘popularization in the public mind,’ ” relied too heavily on the often-quoted excerpt from Blue Bell that “use” must be “sufficiently public to identify or distinguish the marked goods in an appropriate segment of the public mind as those of the adopter of the mark.” Blue Bell, 508 F.2d at 1266. A closer reading of that case, however, reveals that Farah, which was ultimately awarded ownership of the “Time Out” mark as well as an injunction against Blue Bell, had not obtained any market penetration through its first shipment to customers. Rather, that first shipment upon which Farah’s trademark rights rested, was merely the first “point at which the public had a chance to associate Time Out with a particular line of sportswear.” Id. at 1267. By relying too heavily on that passage in Blue Bell, the district court expected more market penetration than is needed to become the owner of a trademark. Historically, as discussed above, the use required for a common law mark need not be extensive and need not “result in deep market penetration or widespread recognition.” Allard Enterprises, Inc., 146 F.3d at 358.
The district court also prematurely discounted LIM’s sale to Israel Bonds as being a sale to a friend or relative. Here, although LIM’s contact at the Israel Bonds office was a friend of its principals, a trier of fact may still find that this was sufficiently public based upon a fuller record regarding the nature of the sale, the future servicing and training LIM agreed to provide for Israel Bonds and other facts relevant to the sale. The district court also unduly minimized the significance of LIM’s promotional letters introducing LIM to potential clients as well as its word-of-mouth sales campaign. Although LIM’s initial promotional efforts were based on word-of-mouth promotions and direct mailings to business associates, this does not necessarily diminish their significance. In this case, the recipients of LIM’s September 5, 1995 letter were not merely social friends who did not have any market presence. Rather, it appears from the present record that those 25-50 people were chosen from existing corporate customer lists which represented a list of potential customers. The Allard court properly held that reliance of a word-of-mouth campaign or business contacts which could result in bona fide sales was not “so atypical that no reasonable person *323could view it as ‘commercial.’ ” Such is the case here.2 Id. at 358.
Thus, because I find that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether LIM’s conduct establishes “use,” I would remand for further proceedings.3
B. The Natural Footwear Test
With respect to the district court’s secondary reliance on the four-factor test announced in Natural Footwear to determine “use” and the majority’s exclusive reliance on that test, I also dissent. Although the Natural Footwear test is useful at the remedy stage of a proceeding to determine the territorial limits of an injunction to delineate trademark rights between two remote users of a confusingly similar mark, that test is inapplicable to the threshold question of ownership. While I am mindful of the precedential value of Natural Footwear, I am also mindful that Natural Footwear does not stand alone as the governing principle of trademark law, and in this case, stands apart from the requisite threshold inquiry for a common law trademark.
I will not recount here the facts of Natural Footwear, suffice it to say that the court was presented with a dispute arising out of the territorial limits of a senior user’s mark when a junior user had cultivated the same mark in a geographically remote market. Presented with the need to formulate a test which would address the scope of a common law trademark right, this court announced a four-part test for determining the market penetration of a trademark in a specific area. That test measures “(1) the volume of sales of the trademarked product; (2) the growth trends (both positive and negative) in the area; (3) the number of persons actually purchasing the product in relation to the potential number of customers; and (4) the amount of product advertising in the area.” Natural Footwear Ltd., 760 F.2d 1383, 1398 (3d Cir.1985) (internal citations omitted). The purpose of this test is to ensure that a common law trademark holder’s rights do not precede it into a market it has not yet penetrated but which a subsequent user has penetrated.
There is no indication in the history or subsequent application of that four-factor test that it was intended to be used to discern the status of a prior user as an initial matter. Rather, the history and later reliance on the Natural FooUvear test supports the conclusion that this test is a tool of equity designed to determine the appropriate remedy in a geographical dispute between two good faith users of a mark. In fact, one must remember that the Natural FooUvear test is an exception to the well-established rule of law that a senior user is deemed the exclusive owner of the trademark. United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co., 248 U.S. 90, 101, 39 S.Ct. 48, 63 L.Ed. 141 (1918); Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Metcalf, 240 U.S. 403, 415-16, 36 S.Ct. 357, 361, 60 L.Ed. 713 (1916). This exception grew out of the need to balance the equities between two good faith remote users of the same mark. Id.; ACCU Personnel, Inc., 846 F.Supp. at 1213 (D.Del.1994) (noting exception to rule *324of priority). The analysis in Sweetarts v. Sunline, Inc., 380 F.2d 923 (8th Cir.1967), one of the decisions upon which the Natural Footwear court relied, illustrates this point. In Sweetarts, after the Eighth Circuit found that the plaintiff had a valid common law trademark which the defendant had infringed, the court turned to the question of the “geographical extent to which plaintiff is entitled to relief.” Id. at 928; see also Weiner King, Inc. v. The Wiener King Corp., 615 F.2d 512 (CCPA 1980) (territorial inquiry made only after each user’s rights established).
Even within this circuit, it was only recently in Smith v. Ames Department Stores, Inc., 988 F.Supp. 827 (D.N.J.1997), aff'd, 172 F.3d 860 (3d Cir.1998), which is not precedential authority, and the instant case, that the Natural Footwear test was applied exclusively to the threshold inquiry of use. Prior to those recent cases, the Natural Footwear test was applied only to the question of the territorial limits of an injunction between two remote users. See e.g., Ford Motor Co., 930 F.2d 277 (discussing the acquisition of a common law trademark without reference to Natural Footwear); ACCU Personnel, Inc., 846 F.Supp. 1191 (Natural Footwear test applied to determine extent of common law trademark rights already secured in Southern New Jersey); Trans Pacific Insurance Co. v. Trans-Pacific Insurance Co., 739 F.Supp. 240 (E.D.Pa.1990) (preliminary injunction denied to “senior common law mark user” under the Natural Footwear test absent proof of actual market penetration); City of Newark v. Beasley, 883 F.Supp. 3, 9 (D.N.J.1995) (stating that “there is no set formula as to the quantity of use required to establish mark rights. The general rule is that mark rights are not created by sporadic or de minimis use.”).
Moreover, in the Eighth Circuit in which Sweetarts is the law, that test is not applied to the threshold inquiry of use but is applied when considering the scope of the remedy given to a senior common law trademark user in a territorial dispute. See Wristr-Rocket Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Saunders Archery Co., 578 F.2d 727, 732 (8th Cir.1978) (relying on Sweetarts only for geographical zone of common law rights and not “use” analysis); Electronic Communications, Inc. v. Electronic Components for Industry Co., 443 F.2d 487 (8th Cir.1971) (on question of prior use, the Eighth Circuit looked to actual use in commerce but did not invoke the Sweetarts standard of inquiry); Graham Webb International v. Helene Curtis Inc., 17 F.Supp.2d 919 (D.Minn.1998) (issue of pri- or use between plaintiffs initial sale of goods compared to defendant’s promotional and test efforts addressed with traditional common law principles and no reference to Sweetarts).
It is plain from a review of these cases that the Natural Footwear test is an exception which grew out of the need to balance the equities between two remote users of the same mark where the remedy imposed is a permanent injunction. This test was not meant to be dispositive of the ownership of a mark between two concurrent users and stands in stark contrast to the standard relied upon by Judge Friendly in La Societe Anonyme des Parfums le Galion v. Jean Patou, Inc., 495 F.2d 1265, that “there must be a trade in the goods sold under the mark or at least an active and public attempt to establish such a trade.” Id. at 1274 (quoting Clairol, Inc. v. Holland Hall Products, Inc., 165 U.S.P.Q. 214 (TTAB 1970)).
By applying to the threshold question of use for a common law mark the same standard of “use” required for a permanent injunctive relief, I respectfully suggest that the majority errs. The distribution of trademark rights is distinct from the question of appropriate remedy. This is especially true in trademark disputes where courts have great latitude to “tailor trademark remedies to decrease the likelihood of confusion without unnecessarily inhibiting competition.” Merchant & Evans, Inc. v. Roosevelt Building Products *325Co., Inc., 963 F.2d 628, 639-40 (3d Cir.1992). A permanent injunction is, of course, not the only form of equitable relief in a court’s arsenal. See Kane, Siegrun, Trademark Law: A Practioner’s Guide, (3d Ed.1997) at 16-1—16-7; 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a) (courts “shall have power to grant injunctions, according to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court may deem reasonable.”) Given the range of remedies available to an infringed party, there is no sound reason for equating the standard of use to obtain a trademark with the standard needed to obtain an injunction against a remote user.
In practice, this higher, standard of use would deprive local start-up concerns in this circuit from obtaining common law trademark rights based upon their deliberate and continuous use of a mark. Indeed, such a test might make it “impossible, with respect to a valuable and desirable article or product of manufacture, designated by a particular brand or in a particular manner, ever to establish a trade,” Kathreiner’s Malzkaffee Fabriken Mit Beschraenkter Haftung, 82 F. at 326. Simply, a company’s attempts to establish a business with the aid of a trademark could be stifled by a competitor before that company’s sales and “market penetration” ever reach the standard set forth in Nahiral Footwear. I do not believe this is what was intended under trademark law or under the Lan-ham Act. Indeed, the majority’s formulaic adherence to Natural Footwear proceeds on the theory that a trademark must penetrate a particular geographic area in its inception rather than recognizing that a prior senior user is entitled to ownership of a mark in its development into a larger concern provided that its initial use is enough to grant it ownership rights.
Putting aside for a moment the impact the majority’s rule of use may have for start-up companies which are slow to achieve market penetration, one can easily foresee how this new rule may also present problems to long-established companies. The rule adopted by the majority means that trademark users which have engaged in continuous use of their mark albeit over a diffuse area will no longer have any trademark rights. By refusing all common law trademark rights to a long-standing, non-concentrated and moderately successful company under the Natural Footwear test, a junior user can enjoin that company from using a mark altogether. Such a result runs counter to trademark law.
In this global economy where goods are often sold over a wide area rather than in a neighborhood store, the majority’s rule of use penalizes small companies which take advantage of the national market. It is ironic that the majority sets forth such a high standard of use in this day and age when there is a technological revolution underway in which the internet permits small trademark users to sell their goods and services to broad geographic areas. The majority’s standard of use places a legal straightjacket on those companies and deprives them of all common law trademark rights. In the end, this will exclude a whole class of trademark users from obtaining rights through “use” rather than registration and will tilt the level playing field which has always been an indispensable ingredient in deciding trademark rights.
The sounder analysis, I respectfully suggest, is to determine first whether a company has engaged in sufficient use of a mark under common law trademark law and, if there is a finding of infringement by another company, the court should consider that first company’s market penetration and other indicia of the equities involved in the case to fashion appropriate injunctive relief. See Allard Enterprises, Inc., 146 F.3d 350 (diffuse use created common law rights but case remanded for a determination of what area the defendants had penetrated before granting an injunction); Soltex Polymer Corp. v. Fortex Industries, Inc., 832 F.2d 1325 (2d Cir.1987) (where confusion was moderate, disclaimer was appropriate remedy); N. Hess’ Sons, Inc. *326v. Hess Apparel, Inc., 738 F.2d 1412 (4th Cir.1984) (disclaimer relief granted); Manhattan Industries, Inc. v. Sweater Bee by Banff, Ltd., 627 F.2d 628 (2d Cir.1980) (where equities were close, no permanent injunction granted); A & H Sportswear Co., Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, Inc., 967 F.Supp. 1457 (E.D.Pa.1997) (disclaimer granted); remanded on other grounds, 166 F.3d 197 (1999); WAWA Inc. v. Commons at WAWA Inc., 1989 WL 101362 (E.D.Pa.1989) (disclaimer granted instead of permanent injunction where likelihood of confusion was minimal); Thrifty Rentt-A-Car System, Inc. v. Thrift Cars, Inc., 639 F.Supp. 750 (D.Mass.1986) (recognizing common law senior user but defining market as East Taunton, Massachusetts and fashioning appropriately narrow injunctive relief).
For the foregoing reasons, I dissent from the majority’s decision today to raise the “use” requirement for a common law trademark right to the same level needed to obtain a permanent injunction between two remote users.
C. LTI’s Good Faith Adoption and Use of the “LUCENT" Mark
As stated by the majority, the court need not determine in this case whether knowledge of a senior user’s mark is dis-positive of a junior user’s bad faith in adopting that mark. Here, since the district court determined that LIM had no trademark rights, logically, the district court did not fully address the issue of LTI’s bad faith or its assertion of the attorney client privilege during discovery. As stated above, I disagree with the district court’s grant of summary judgment and I would remand this case for further proceedings including a determination of whether LTI may assert the attorney client privilege in this case.
. The district court did not credit LIM for this sale to Corporate Consultants because the court considered this to be an internal transaction which did not bear on the determination of whether LIM had established priority. Since the record has not been fully developed on this point, and I resolve all reasonable inferences in favor of LIM, I credit this sale, at this time, to LIM. On a fuller record, the trier of fact can determine whether this sale was sufficiently public to weigh in favor of LIM's ownership rights.
. Surely the district court did not intend to conclude that a company's targeting existing corporate clients or "friends in high places” for its promotions and initial sales cannot form the basis for a common law trademark right. Such a holding would have tragic consequences to all companies, particularly large companies, which have cultivated substantial business and social contacts with potential clients. In fact, this is how business has been done for millennia.
. Although summary judgment is not appropriate here, it is still appropriate where a company merely reserves a mark to preclude competition or for later use, see La Societe Anonyme des Parfums le Galion, 495 F.2d at 1272, where a company makes a token sale to lay down a claim to the mark, see Talk To Me Products, Inc. v. Larami Corp., 804 F.Supp. 555 (S.D.N.Y.1992), or made internal, secret sales, Hydro-Dynamics, Inc. v. George Putnam & Co., Inc., 811 F.2d 1470 (Fed.Cir.1987), or merely made sales to personal friends who were not market players, see Jaffe v. Simon & Schuster, 3 U.S.P.Q.2d 1047, 1049 (S.D.N.Y.1987).