Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): comparison of the two marks, but rather must determine whether the allegedly infringing mark is confusing to the public when singly presented. Id. Similar ities of the marks are given more weight than differences. Id. In this case, the marks are similar inasmuch as they both utilize some variation of the words “Big Dog.” Holdings relies heavily on this similarity between the marks and asks the court to focus on the fact that this is the dominant portion of the marks. The court finds Holdings’ heavy reliance on this consideration to be misplaced for two reasons. First, it is well settled that while the dominant portion of a mark is given greater weight, the court must still consider each mark as a whole. First Sav. Bank v. First Bank Sys., Inc., 101 F.3d 645, 653 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); see also Heartsprings, Inc. v. Heartspring, 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing similarities between illinois and federal law on relation back (B) recognizing auditory similarities between two marks at summary judgment where the plaintiff had linguistic expert evidence that the marks were pronounced similarly (C) holding that despite some differences between the charged offense and the collateral crime similarities between the two were striking enough to establish a unique crime pattern (D) holding the district court erred by relying too heavily on the appearance and pronunciation of the marks where the differences between the entire marks and their attending logos outweighed the similarities (E) holding expert testimony on probative similarities between works is unnecessary where the works are not highly technical and the jury is capable of recognizing and understanding the similarities between the works without the help of an expert
Output (English): holding that despite some differences between the charged offense and the collateral crime similarities between the two were striking enough to establish a unique crime pattern