Judgment for defendant in a trademark dispute is affirmed, where: 1) the properly-instructed jury was entitled to make the fact finding that the doctrine of tacking applied to establish defendant's priority as the first to use a trademark in the sale of goods or services; 2) plaintiff did not make the required showing, as the losing party in a jury trial, that its interpretation of the evidence was the only reasonable one; 3) the jury could have reasonably concluded that the ordinary purchasers of the financial services at issue likely had a consistent, continuous commercial impression of the services the defendant offered and their origin; and 4) defendant did not abandon the mark.