Record contained sufficient evidence to support jury’s verdict in favor of plaintiff-senior user of “Fabick” trademark in instant Lanham Act infringement action, where plaintiff advanced reverse trademark confusion claim that defendant, as larger junior user of said trademark, used trademark in manner that likely caused confusion as to source or origin of plaintiff’s products. Dist. Ct. could properly give modified instruction that allowed jury to find violation of Lanham Act, where consumers had mistaken belief that plaintiff was somehow connected to defendant. Also, jury could properly have rejected defendant’s claim that it, as opposed to plaintiff, was senior user of instant trademark, where jury could have found that defendant’s use of trademark was not continuous in relevant region. Moreover, Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff only limited injunctive relief requiring defendant to clarify for period of five years that it was separate entity from plaintiff, as opposed to issuing broad permanent injunction barring defendant’s use of said trademark, where plaintiff could not show loss of business or reputation arising out of defendant’s use of trademark, and where parties did not compete for business.