Task: Text Completion
Input (English): The district court found that there was “no possibility of confusion by the purchaser at or near the point of sale.” 894 F.Supp. at 1200. The grounds for this conclusion are apparent, but are certainly useful to discuss. Companies in the corn wet milling industry purchase clamshells directly from the manufacturers, after extensive negotiations and discussions. Fluid-Quip held itself out to this limited market as a competitor of Dorr-Oliver and conspicuously marked its elam-shells with its company name. Clearly, any purchasers of clamshells would know from whom they were buying. There is therefore no realistic possibility that anyone would purchase a Fluid-Quip clamshell believing it to be a Dorr-Oliver clamshell. See Versa Prods. Co. v. Bifold Co. Mfg. Ltd., 50 F.3d 189, 212 (3d Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 54, 133 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that even several isolated incidents of actual confusion are insufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion (B) holding that most important factors in evaluating confusion in product configuration eases are marketing and labeling of products (C) holding that although the district court recognized confusion based on similarity of products it failed to give proper weight to the virtual identity of the parties products (D) holding attending and marketing products at national trade show in texas insufficient to confer general jurisdiction (E) recognizing that among other factors the location and level of the precedent as well as its age are important factors in a qualified immunity analysis
Output (English): (B)