2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

7-9-2010 

# S a bins a C orp v

. C re at i ve C omp ound s P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3255

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" S a b in s a C orp v

. C r e at ive C ompound s " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 839. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/839P RE CE DE NT I AL U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

__________ N o. 08- 3255

__________ S A B IN S A C O R P O R A T IO N , A p p e llan t.

v. CREA TI VE C OM POU ND S, LLC

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D

. C

. N o. 2- 04- cv- 04239) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. D enni s M

. C avana ugh

A r gued on M ay13, 2009 B efor e: A M B R O and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges and FI SC H E R *, D i s t r i ctJ udge

*J udge N or a B arr yFi s cher , U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct J udge fort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng by d e s ig n a tio n .2 ( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y9, 2010) J ames H

. H ul m e, E s qui r e ( A r gue d) Ar e n t , Fo x , Ki n t n e r , Pl o t k i n & Kah n , LLP 1050 C onnect i cutA venue, N

. W

. , Sui t e 500 W as hi ngt on, D C 20036

C ouns el forA ppel l antSabi ns a C o rpo rati on S ea n R

. K ell y , E sq u ir e Sa i b e r , LLC O ne G at ew ayC ent er , 13 Fl oor th Sui t e 300 N ew ark, N J 07102- 5311

C ouns el forA ppel l antSabi ns a C o rpo rat i on B r i an J

. M cM ahon, E s qui r e K evi n M cN ul t y , E s qui r e ( A r gue d) G ib b o n s , P . C

. O ne G at ew ayC ent er N ew ark, N J 07102- 5310

Cou n s e l f

o r App e l l e e Cr e a t i v e Comp o u n d s , LLC

O P I N I O N3 RO TH , C i r cui tJ udge:

S ab insa C o rp o rati o n ap p ea ls th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s jud g m en t in fa v o r o f C rea ti v e C o m p o u n d s, L L C , o n S ab insa ’s t r ademar k i nfring ementand unfa i rcompet i t i on cl ai m s . T he D i s t r i ct C our t found t hat t her e w as no l i kel i hood o f c onfus i on b etw ee n S ab insa ’s m ark , F o rsL ea n , an d C rea ti v e C o m p o u n d s’s m ark, For s t hi n, bot h of w hi ch r efe rt o C o leu s fo rs ko h lii e x tra c t, an ing red ient u sed in w eigh t m an ag em en t pro d u cts. B ec au se the D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n i t s fi ndi ngs on the Lapp f a c to rs a n d its ul t i m at e fi ndi ng on l i kel i hood of conf us i on, w e w i l l r ever s e the ju d g m e n t. F u rth e r, b e c a u se th e u n d isp u ted f a c ts w e ig h h e a v ily i n favorof S abi ns a so t hat any r eas onabl e factfi nder , w ei ghi ng t he Lapp fac t or s pr oper l y , w ould fi nd thatSabi ns a had d em o n str ated a l ikeliho o d o f co n fu sion , w e co n clud e tha t th ere i s no need t o r emand fora r e- w ei ghi ng byt he D i s t r i ctC our tof t he Lapp fac t or s . W e ther efor e r emand t hi s ca se fo r entr yof j udgm enti n favorof Sabi ns a. I . Backg r ound T he fol l ow i ng fac t s ar e undi s put ed. For s kohl i n i s an ex tr actder i ved fr om the r oot s of the p lan t C o leu s fo rs ko h lii , a mem berof th e m i ntfami l y , found pr i m ar i l y i n I ndi a. I ti s m anufa ctur ed byharves t i ng and dry i ng t he C o leu s fo rs ko h liiro o t an d th e n e x tra c tin g th e f o rsk o h lin in to a h ig h ly -c o n c e n tra ted slu rry . T h e slu rryis th e n c o m b in e d w ith inac ti v e ing red ients to m ak e v ariou s co n ce n tr ati o n s, w h ich a re s o l d i n p o wd e rf

o r m.T he nutr aceuti cal i nd ust ryprovides i ng redi ents for supp l i ers , 1 m anu facturer s, and m arket ers of n utr i t i on al supp l em ents
. 4 Sab i ns a, an i ngr edi ents uppl i erfornut r ace ut i cal 1 m anufa ctur er s , w as fo u n d e di n 1 9 8 8 b yD r . M uhamm ed M aj eed, a sc ientistw ith ex p erien ce in the p h arm ac eu ti ca l in d u s try
. In 1996, D r . M aj eed be gan r es ear ch i nt o the pot ent i al us e of for s kohl i n t o pr om ot e l ean bodym as s . A ft ercompl et i ng a cl i ni cal t r i al , Sabi ns a fi l ed an i nt ent
- to-us e appl i cat i on fort he t r a d e ma r k , Fo r s Le a n , f o r me d b y c o mbi n i n g “ Fo r s ” fr om forskoh l i n w i t h “L ean” f or l ean b od ym ass. S abinsa fi rs t m arket ed For s L ean t o nutr ace ut i cal m anufa ctur er s in 2 000. S a b in sa h a s a lso c re a ted p a m p h lets m a rk e tin g F o rsL e a n d ire c tly t o t he publ i c. For s L ean w as Sabi ns a’ s hi gh est r evenue g e n e ra tin g p ro d u c t f

o r a t lea st f

iv e y e a rs p re c e d in g th e trial in th e D istric t C o u rt. I n 2003, a se v ere dr oughts t ruck I ndi a and a ffe ct ed S a b in sa ’s s u p p ly o f f

o rsk o h lin . A s a re su lt, S a b in sa b o th w or ked t o keep i t s cus t om er s i nt er es te d i n For s L ean a nd s pent s i gni fi cantr es our ces hel pi ng farm er s i n I ndi a cul t i vat e C ol eus fo rs ko h liito e n su re a c o n tin u e d su p p ly in th e f u tu re . F o rsk o h lin w a s a v a ilab le a g a in in th e sp rin g o f 2 0 0 4 , in p a rt d u e to Sabi ns a’ s eff

or t s . Sabi ns a ther eaf

t ercr eat ed the “For s L ean pr om i s e, ” a c om m i t m entt o i t s cus t om er s t o ens ur e the s uppl yof for s kohl i n i n t he futur e. C r eat i ve C om pounds i s al s o an i ngr edi ent s uppl i ert o t he nut r ace ut i cal i ndus t r yal t hough i toper at es w i t h o nl ys even5 e m p lo y e e s, n o n e o f

w h o m is a sc ien tist o r P h .D ., a n d it co n d u c ts no r es ear ch and de vel opm ent
. C r eat i ve C o m pounds began s el l i ng for s kohl i n att he end of 2002. I t di d not , how ever , adopt t he tr ade na m e For s t hi n for i t s pr oduct unt i l t he s pr i ng of 2004

– j us t a s Sa b i n s a ’ s s u p p l yp r o b l e ms wer e c o mi n g t o a n e n d. T hough t her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hatC r eat i ve C om pounds everhad a p ro b lem w ith su p p lya ss o c iate d w ith th e d ro u g h t in I n d ia, it h e a v ilyp ro m o ted “ T h e R e tu rn o f C o leu s” a s it in tro d u c e d its new F orsthin brand: “N ot l on g ag o, C oleus w as o ne of the m ost p o w e rf u l o p tio n s in stim u lan t-f re e w e ig h t lo ss . T h a t w a s u n til r aw m at er i al s hor t ages and l ow - qual i t y ex tr act s m ade m aintainin g a C o leus fo rm u la a n igh tm a re . T h o se d ay s are o v e r.” C re a tiv e C o m p o u n d s m a d e v e ryf e w sa les o f

f o rsk o h lin in 2 0 0 2 , 2 0 0 3 , an d 2 0 0 4 , b u t so ld m o re th a n 1 0 0 0 k ilo g ra m s in 2 0 0 5 , n e a r l y6 0 0 k i l o g r a ms i n 2 0 0 6 , a n d n e a r l y7 0 0 k i l o g r a ms i n 2007. Sabi ns a s enta ce as e- and- des i s tl ett ert o C r eat i ve C om pounds i n t he s um m erof 2004, s oon aft er t he l att erbegan us i ng t he nam e F or s t hi n. W i t hi n a w eek a nd w i t houtcont act i ng Sabi ns a, C r eat i ve C om po unds fi l ed a de cl ar at oryj udgm ent act i on i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor the D i s t r i ctof M i s s our i

. Sabi ns a then fi l ed t hi s s ui t , and the M i s s our i s ui tw as di s m i s s ed i n favorof thi s one.

S ab insa’ s C om pl ai ntal l eged f i ve cl ai m s , al l of w hi ch re q u ire d th a t it p ro v e b o th its o w n e rsh ip o f a v a lid a n d leg a lly pr ot ect abl e tr ademar k and a l i kel i hood of conf us i on caus ed by C re a tiv e C o m p o u n d s ’s u s e o f th e m a rk F o rs th in

. E

. T. B r ow ne D r ug C o. v. C ococar e Prods

. , I nc. , 5 3 8 F

. 3 d 1 8 5 , 1 9 1 (3d C ir

.6 2008)

. C r eat i ve C om pounds has conce ded thatSabi ns a ow ns th e F orsLea n m ark and that the m ark i s val i d an d legal ly pr ot ect abl e. T her efor e, t he onl y i s s ue for t r i al w as “w hetheror n o t D e f e n d a n t’ s u se o f

th e m a rk F o rsth in is lik e lyto c re a te co n fu sion in the m ark etplac e w h en co m p are d to P lai n ti ff ’s m ark F o rs [ L ]e a n .” O n Ju n e 1 6 , 2 0 0 8 , af

ter a b en ch tr ial , the D istri ct C o u rt r ead i nt o t he r ecor d an or al deci s i on i n favoro f C rea t i ve C om pounds

. Sabi ns a appe al ed. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uant to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1

. I I . St andard of R evi ew W e e x erc ise p lena ryrev iew o v er th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s le g a l c o n c lu s io n s re g a rd in g th e L a n h a m A c t. See Checkpoi nt Sys

. , I nc. v. C heck

P oi ntSof

tw ar e Techs

. , I

nc. , 269 F. 3d 270, 279 ( 3d C i r . 2001)

. Factual fi ndi ngs conce r ni ng the l i kel i hood o f c o n f u s io n a re re v ie w e d f

o r c le a r e r ro r. See A & H Spor t s w ear, I nc. v. V i ct or i a’s Secr et

St or es , I nc. , 237 F. 3d 198, 2 1 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). “ C lea r erro r ex ists w h e n , g iv in g a ll defe r ence t o t he oppor tunit y o f the tr i al j udge t o eval uat e the cr edi bi l i t yof w i t nes s es and to w ei gh t he evi dence , w e ar e l eft w i t h a def

i ni t e and f

ir m co nvi ct i on t hata mi s t ake ha s been comm i t t ed. ” I

d. at 1 9 4 (qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). T h o u g h “ [ l ] i k e lih o o d o f c o n f u s io n is a f

a c tu a l q u e s tio n [ ,] . . . lega l pr i nci pl es govern w hatevi dence m ay , orm us t , be cons i der ed by t he D i s t r i ct C our t i n r eac hi ng t hatconcl us i on, and al s o w hats t andar ds appl yt o i t s det erm i nat i on. ” I d. a t 2 1 0

. Pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 52, a tr i al7 c o u rt m u st m a k e c lea r f a c tu a l f in d in g s to su p p o rt its co n clus ion s. 9 W ri g h t & M il ler, F ed era l P rac ti ce & P roc ed u re § 2574, at 690. R ul e 52 i s nots at i s fi ed “byt he s t at ementof the u lti m a te f

a c t w ith o u t th e su b o rd in a te f a c tu a l f o u n d a tio n s f

o r it w hi ch al s o m us t be t he s ubj ect of s peci fi c fi ndi ngs . ” O ' N ei l lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 4 1 1 F

. 2 d 1 3 9 , 1 4 6 (3d C ir

. 1 9 6 9 ). “If [s ubor di nat e fi ndi ngs ] di d notent eri nt o the pro cess byw hi ch t he ul t i m at e fa ctual fi ndi ng w as m ade, then i tw as w i t houtany s uppor t i ng foundat i on. ” H

. P r ang Truc ki ng C o. , I n c. v. Local U ni on N o. 469 , 613 F. 2d 1235, 1238 ( 3d C i r . 1980) ( ci t at i on o m itted). II I. T h e D istr ict C o u r t’s L ik e lih o o d o f C o n fu sio n A n a ly sis “To prove l i kel i hood of conf us i on, pl ai nt i ffs m us ts how t hatcons um er s vi ew i ng the mar k w o u l d pr obabl yas s um e the pr oductors ervi ce i tr epr es ent s i s as s oci at ed w i t h t he s our ce of a d if f e re n t p ro d u c t o r s e rv ic e id e n tif ie d b ya s im ila r m a rk .” C heckp oint

Sys. , 269 F. 3d at280 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks r emoved)

. I n In te r

p a c e C o r

p . v . L a p p , In c ., w e s et fo rt h t he f a c to rs w h ich m a yin d ica te a lik e lih o o d o f c o n f u sio n : ( 1) t he degr ee of

s i m i l ar i t ybetw een the ow ner ' s m ark and th e a lleg e d in f

rin g in g m a rk ; (2 ) th e stre n g th o f

th e o w n e r’s m a rk ; ( 3) t he pr i ce of t he goods and otherfac t or s i ndi cat i ve of t he c are and att ent i on expec t ed of c ons um er s w hen m a k in g a p u rc h a se ; (4) the leng th o f ti m e the d ef en d an t has u sed the m ark w ith o u t ev id e n c e o f

a c tu a l co n f

u sio n a risin g ; (5 ) th e in ten t o f

th e d e f e n d a n t in a d o p tin g th e m a rk ;8 (6 ) th e e v id e n c e o f

a c tu a l co n f

u sio n ; (7) w h ethe r th e g o o d s, tho u g h n o t com p eti n g , are m arket ed thr ough t he s ame channel s of tr ade a nd a d v e rtise d th ro u g h th e sa m e m e d ia; ( 8) t he ext ent t o w hi ch t he t ar get s of t he par t i es ’ sal es e f f o rts a re th e sa m e ; ( 9) the r el at i ons hi p of t he goods i n t he m ind s of cons um er s beca us e of s i m i l ar i t yof func t i ons ; and ( 10) ot her fac t or s s ugges t i ng t he cons um i ng publ i c mi ght expec tt he pr i orow nert o m anufa ctur e a pr oducti n t he defe ndant ’ s m arket ort hathe i s l i kel yt o expand i nt o t hat m a rk e t. 721 F. 2d at 463. “N one of t hes e fac t or s i s det erm i nat i ve i n t he l i kel i hood of conf

us i on anal y s i s and each f act orm us tbe w ei ghed and ba l ance d one agai ns t t he other

. ” C heckp oint Sys. , 2 6 9 F. 3d at280. I n r evi ew i ng a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s anal y s i s of the Lapp fac t or s , w e can r ever s e the court ’ s concl us i ons i f the re lev a n t f

a c to rs a re n o t p ro p e rlyse t f o rth a n d n o t p ro p e rly w e ig h e d

. See Kos P har m aceut i cal s v. A ndr x C or por at i on , 369 F

. 3 d 7 0 0 , 7 1 1 -12 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ). I n Kos , a t r a d e ma r k c a s e i n v o l v i n g t h e m ar ks “A D V IC O R ” an d “A L T O C O R , ” w e rev erse d a distri ct co u rt ’s lik e lih o o d o f c o n f

u sio n d e c isio n b e c a u se it h a d e rre d in its anal y s i s of m ark s i m i l ar i t y , over emphasi zed c us t om er s ophi s t i cat i on, appl i ed the w r ong s t andar ds r e g a r d i n g i n t e n t , a nd ig n o re d se v e ra l o th e r re lev a n t Lapp f a c to rs . I d. at711–12. T he s ame di s t r ict jud ge made s i m i l arerr or s her e. I n fi ndi ng t hat t her e w as no l i kel i hood of conf us i on betw een For s L ean a nd F o rsth in , the D istric t C o u rt e n g a g e d in d e taile d a n a ly sis o f o n ly9 th re e o f th e re lev a n t Lapp fac t or s and fa i l ed t o di s cus s m uch of t he evi dence pr es ent ed bySabi ns a. T he D i s t r i ctC our tt hen as s er t ed, “Thi s C our ti s notgoi ng t o comm ent o n all of the t es t i m o n y o ff

ere d att r i al

. Suffi ce i tt o s ay , I am sat i s fi ed that the t es t i m onyt aken a s a w hol e ampl ys uppor t s the C o u rt ’s deci s i on. ” H ow ever , w hi l e i ti s true thata di s t r i ctcou rtm ay fi nd t hat“ce r t ai n of the Lapp fac t or s ar e i nappl i cabl e or u n h e lp f u l in a p a rticu lar c a se ,” th e c o u rt m u st s til l “e x p lain its choi ce not t o empl oy t hos e fa ct or s . ” See A & H Spor t s w ear , 237 F 3d at21 4 n

. 8. H ere, t he D i stri ctC ou rtfai l ed to exp lain w hetheri tvi ew ed thes e r emai ni ng fac t or s as neut r al or i rr el evan tor h ow i t w ei gh ed an d b al anced t he co m bined factor s. F u rth e r , it s re a so n in g c o n c e rn in g th e th re e f a c to rs it c h o se to anal y ze i s fl aw ed. T yp ic a lly , w h e n a d istric t co u rt f a ils a d e q u a telyto s uppor t i t s fi ndi ngs , w e mer el yr emand fora r e- w ei ghi ng of the appl i c a b l e f

a c t o r s . W h e r e th e f

a c t s a r e l a r g e l yu n d i s p u t e d, how ever , “‘w e nee d notr emand’ i f appl i cat i on of the corr ect s t andar d coul d s uppor t onl y one conc l us i on. ” Kos , 369 F. 3d at 712 ( quot i ng D ur aco P r ods

. , I nc. v. Joy Pl as t i c Ent ers . , Ltd. , 40 F .3 d 1 4 3 1 , 1 4 5 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 4 )); s ee al s o Lapp , 721 F. 2d at460 ( r ever s i n g and di r ect i ng entr yof j udgm ent )

. Such a r emand w oul d be a w as t e of j udi ci al r es our ces . I n Kos , f o re x a mp l e , we obs erved , “R egar dl es s of how t he fa ctual di s put es m i ghtbe r es ol ved, anyr eas onabl e fa ct fi nderw ei ghi ng t he Lapp f a c to rs in acc or dance w i t h t he cor r ect l egal s t andar ds w oul d hol d [i n favor of K os ]

. ” Kos , 369 F. 3d at 725. A ccor di ngl y , as w e di d i n that cas e, w e w il l r evi ew t he fi ndi ngs of the D i s t r i ctC our t , al ong w i t h t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d b yt h e p a r t i e s , t o d e t e r mi ne w h e th e r , in lig h t o f

th e c o n tro lli n g leg a l p rin c ip les , the f a c ts10 a n d /o r th e f

a ilu re s in th e D istric t C o u rt’s a n a ly sis c o m p e l a r e s u l ta s a ma t t e ro f

l a w. IV . T h e In d iv id u a l L app F act ors A . S i m i l arit y of M ark s (L app F act or O ne) “The s i ngl e m os t i m por t ant fac t or i n det erm i ni ng l i kel i hood of confus i on i s m ark s i m i l ar i t y . ” A & H Spor t s w ear , 2 3 7 F

. 3 d at 2 1 6

. M ark s are co n fu sing ly sim il ar “i f o rd inary co n su m ers w o u ld li k elyco n clud e th at [the tw o p rod u cts] sha re a c o m m o n s o u rc e , a f

f ilia tio n , c o n n e c tio n o r s p o n s o rs h ip .” F is ons H or t i cul t ur e, I

nc. v. V i gor o I ndus

. , I nc. , 30 F. 3d 466, 477 ( 3d C i r . 1994)

. T he pr oper t es t i s not a s i de- by

- s i de compar i s on b u t, rath e r, “w h e th e r th e lab e ls c re a te th e sa m e o v e ra ll i m pr es s i on w hen vi ew ed s epar at el y . ” Kos , 369 F. 3d at713. O ver al l i m pr es s i on i s cr eat ed byt he s i ght , s ound, and meani ng o f th e m a rk

. S ee A & H

S por t s w ear , 237 F. 3d at217. “‘ T he d e g r e e o f

sim ilarity

. . . n e e d e d to p ro v e lik e lyc o n f u sio n w ill v a ry w ith th e d if

f e re n c e in th e g o o d s . . .. W h e re th e g o o d s . . . a re d ire c tlyc o m p e tit iv e , the d e g re e o f s im ilarityre q u ire d to pr ove a l i k e l i h o o d o f c o n f u s i o n i s l e s s t h a n i n t h e c a s e of di s s i m i l arpr oduct s . ’ ” Kos , 36 9 F

. 3d a t71 3 (quo t i ng 3 J. T h o m a s M c C a rt h y , M C C AR THY ON T RAD EMA R KS AN D U N FA IR C OMP ETI TI ON § 2 3 :20

. 1 (4th ed

. 2 0 0 3 )). T he D i s t r i ctC our t found thatt hi s fac t orfavor s C r eat i ve C o m p o u n d s , a s s e rt in g th a t, b e y o n d th e s h a re d le tte rs “ f o rs ,” F o rsL ea n an d F o rsth in h av e “n o o ther sim il arity . ” T h e c o u rt ’s r eas oni ng, how ever , cont ai ns cl earerr o rs. Fi r s t , fori t s vi s ual anal y s i s , t he D i s t r i ctC our t focus ed on m i nut e di ffe r ence s i n t heE v en the D istri ct C o u rt ’s c o m p a ri s o n o f th e log o s ap p ea rs 2 m isg u id e d

. T h e “ o rd in a ry c u sto m e r” is s u p p o se d to h a v e “ o n ly gener al r ecol l ect i on” of o n e m ark w hen enc ount er i ng t he s e c o n d

. See F isons Hort i culture , 3 0 F

. 3 d at 477–78. B yt hat s t andar d, t he tw o l ogos s eem str i ki ngl ys i m i l ar : E ach c ont ai ns t he r es pect ive pr oductname, w i t h t he s econd s y l l abl e s etoff, pl ace d i n fr ontof fol i age t o s ym bol i ze the C o leu s f o rs ko h lii p lant. A lon e, ho w ev er, th is l ikelyw o u ld n o t m eritv ac atur, given t he d eference o w ed to the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s fi nd i ng s. 11 p rod u cts’ l o g o s w h il e ign o ri n g ev iden ce that b o th m ark s are oft en us ed i n pl ai n t extw i t houtt he s urr oundi ng gr aphi cs . T he 2 D i s t r i ctC our tdevot ed onl yone s ent ence t o a vi s ual compar i s on of the w or ds For s L ean and For s thi n apartfr om thei rl ogos and t hats ent ence onl ycontr as t ed the w or ds “thi n” and “ l ean” r ather t han t he “over al l i m pr es s i on. ” H ow ever , l ooked atas a w hol e, F o r s Le a n a n d F o r s t h i n s h a r e a l l b u tt h r e e l e t t e r s , h a v e t h e s a me dom i nants y l l abl e and end l ett er , and have t he same num berof sy llab les . U n d e r th e se c irc u m sta n c e s, th e D istric t C o u rt c lea rly e rr e d in f in d in g th a t th e w o rd s a re n o t v is u a lly sim ila r. See Kos , 3 6 9 F

. 3 d at 71 3 (be ca u se A D V IC O R an d A L T O C O R are “[b] ot h

. . . s even- l et t er , t hr ee- s y l l abl e w or ds t hat begi n and end w ith the s am e lett ers a n d the s am e so u n d s . . . the distr ictco u rt c lea rly e r r e d in f

a ili n g to re c o g n ize th a t th is f a c to r w e ig h s in [ th e s e n io r u s e r’ s ] f

a v o r” ). L i kew i se, i n an al y zi ng the “ con no t at i ve d i fferences” betw een For s L ean a nd For s t hi n, t he D i s t r i ctC our ti gnor ed evidenc e a n d fai l ed to m ake suf fi ci ent s ub ordi nate fi nd i ng s. T h e c o u rt sta ted th a t it“ a c c e p ts D e f e n d a n t’s a rg u m e n ts th a t a12 di ffe r ent comm er ci al i m pr es s i on i s m ade bythe w or d ‘ l ean’ v ersu s ‘th in’” a n d that “[ t] h in w o u ld co n v eyto the co n su m er . . . w e ig h t lo s s , w h e re a s le a n w o u ld c o n v e ya le a n b o d ytyp e .” A s an i ni t i al m at t er , agai n t he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed bycompar i ng
“ le a n ” a n d “ th in ” ra th e r t h a n F o rs L e a n a n d F o rs th in

. See Fis ons H ort i culture , 30 F. 3d at477–78. M or e ce ntr al l y , the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s fi ndi ng i s contr ary t o undi s put ed evi dence attr i al , none of w hi ch w as ci t ed i n i t s opi ni on: C rea ti v e C om pounds us es “t hin” and “l ean” int erchang eablyi n it s ot her w e ig h t l oss p ro d u c ts, C re a tiv e C o m p o u n d s’s sa les m a n a g e r an d o n e o f its c u sto m e rs con ceded attri al that “l ean” invo kes “w ei gh tl oss” and thatSa b insa pr om ot es For s L ean t o end us er s as a “w ei ght m anage m ent ” pr oduct

. I ndeed, dur i ng t he tr i al , t he D i s t r i ct C our tt ook “j u d i ci al not i ce thatther e ar e pr oduct s outther e, w h e n th e yu s e th e w o rd ‘l e a n ,’ t h a t a re w e ig h t lo s s p ro d u c ts .” Its u lti m a te f

in d in g th a t th e w o rd s “ th in ” a n d “ lea n ” “ w o u ld c o n v e y ” d if

f e re n t m e n tal im p r e ss io n s to c o n su m e rs is i m pos s i bl e t o r econc i l e w i t h this e ar l i err ecogni t i on t hatt he te rm s a re in te rc h a n g e a b le to c o n s u m e rs . I n s um , t he D i s t r i ct C our t cl ear l y err ed i n fai l i ng t o fi nd t hatt hi s fac t orfavor s Sabi ns a. B. St r e ngt h of

M ar k (L app F act or T w o) T o det erm i ne t he s t r ength of t he m ark, cour t s l ook t o ( 1) th e in h e re n t f

e a tu re s o f

th e m a rk c o n trib u tin g to its di s t i nct i venes s orconce ptual s t r ength and (2) t he fa ctual evi dence of the mar k’ s com m erc ia l s t r ength orof m arketpl ace re c o g n itio n o f

th e m a rk

. See A & H

Spor t s w ear , 237 F. 3d at 221.13 C o u rts cla ss if

y th e d istin c tiv e n e ss o r c o n c e p tu a l stre n g th of a mar k as ei t her( 1) gener i c, l ike “D iet C hocol at e Fudge Soda”; ( 2) des cr i pt i ve, l i ke “Secur i t yC ent er ”; ( 3) s ugges t i ve, l i ke “Copper t one”; or( 4) arbi t r aryorfanc i ful , l i ke “K odak. ” Id

. A rbi t r aryorfanc i ful m arks us e t erm s thatnei t herdes cr i be nor s u g g e s t a n yt h i n g a b o u t th e p ro d u c t. Id

. Sugges t i ve mar ks re q u ire c o n su m e r “ im a g in a tio n , tho u g h t, or p e rc e p tio n ” to d e te rm in e w h a t th e p ro d u c t is

. I d. D e sc rip tiv e m a rk s “ f

o rth w ith convey [] an i m m edi at e i dea of t he i ngr edi ent s , q u al i t i es or ch ara ct er i s t i cs of the goods

. ” I d. G ener i c mar ks “func t i on as t he comm on des cr i pt i ve name of a pr oductcl as s . ” I d. T h e D istric t C o u rt a c k n o w led g e d th a t th e “ F o rs” in For s L ean a nd For s t hi n “i s appar ent l y an abbr evi at i on of the gener i c t erm of the p rod u ct, C ol eus for s kohl i i

. ” I tt hen co n c lu d ed that “[ fo rs] i s n o t a m ere arb itraryterm , b u t, rathe r, a pr efi x us ed by eac h par t y combi ned w i t h ei t hert he w or d ‘ l ean’ or‘ t hi n. ’ ” N ever , how ever , di d t he cour t as s i gn a cl as s i fi cat i on for t he For s L ean m ark; r ather , i n eval uat i ng t he m ark’ s s t r ength, th e c o u rt m e re lysta ted :

D e f e n d a n t ar g u e s th a t P la in tiff ’s m a rk is conce ptual l yw eak b e c aus e i ti s hi ghl ys ugges t i ve. S a b in sa a rg u e s th a t it s m a rk is c o m m e rc ially strong b ased on i t s advert i si ng e ffo rt s, press m ent i ons and i t s r ece i ptof tw o i n d u stryaw ar ds r egar di ng i t s pr oduct

. H ow ever , t es t i m onyatt r i al r efl e c t e d t h e p a r t i e s ’ s ophi s t i cat ed t ar get cus t om er s w er e aw ar e of both par t i es ’ m arks and t hatt her e i s no confus i on. T hi s fac t ordoes n ot s uppor tPl ai nt i ff’ s pos i t i on.14 T hi s anal y s i s amount s t o l egal err or , and i tcul m i nat ed i n a cl ear l yerr oneous fi ndi ng. Fi r s t , i tdoes notfol l ow that b ec aus e Sabi ns a and then C rea ti v e C o m p o u n d s u sed “f o rs” as an ab b rev iat ion fo r C ol eus fo rs ko h lii , the ter m is c o n c e p tu a llyw e a k . A s S a b in sa p o in ts o u t, t he “V ” i n V

- 8 s t ands for “vege t abl e” a nd t he “8” s t ands forthe fac tt hatt he j ui ce ha s ei ghtveget abl es , bu t V -8 is s t i l l an a rb itr a ry te rm . See F isons Hort i culture , 30 F. 3d at478 n. 17 (ci t i ng Standar d B r ands , I nc. v. Sm i dl er , 1 5 1 F. 2 d 3 4 , 36 ( 2d C i r . 1945) ( “The l et t er V byi t s el f no m or e s i gni fi es ‘ veget abl e’ th a n it d o e s a n yo th e r w o rd o f w h ic h it is th e i n i t i a l l e tte r . . . . A s m uch i s t rue of the fi gur e 8

. . . . ”) )

. T her e w as no evi dence pr es ent ed that“for s ” i s a g e n e ric t erm for for s kohl i n. A c c o rd in g ly , to th e e x ten t th a t th e D istric t C o u rt m e a n t to im p ly t hatt he part i es ’ us e of “for s ” as an abbr evi at i on m akes For s L ean a g e n e r i c o rd e s c r i p t i v e t e r m, th i s i s n o tth e l a w. Second, bey ond i t s br ief di s cus s i on of the abbr evi at i on “for s , ” the D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notanal y ze e i t herthe conc eptual orcomm er ci al s t r ength of For s L ean. I ns t ead, as s et for t h above, i tdes cr i bed the part i es ’ ar gum ent s and t hen r ei t er at ed i t s fi ndi ng t hatt her e had be en no conf us i on betw een the tw o compani es among i t s “s ophi s t i cat ed cus t om er s . ” A ctual confus i on and the s ophi s t i cat i on of a pa r ty ’ s cus t om er s , how ever , ar e di ffe r ent pr ongs of the Lapp t es t and w er e “i m perm i s s i bl yconfl at ed” by th e D is t r i c t C o u rt
. See Kos , 369 F. 3d at722. C r eat i ve C om pounds ar gues t hat t he D i s t r i ct C our t m er el y found t hatthe l ack of confus i on among t he par t i es ’ cus t om er s “trum p[ed] ” the par t i es ’ ar gum ent s co n cerni ng t he conc eptual and comm er ci al strengt h o f F orsLea n and t hat t he “strengt h o f t he m ark i s a l ess15 si gn i fi cant ‘confu si on ’ fact or w hen t he b uy ers know t he actual s our ce of

eac h pr oduct

. ” Thi s ar gum entm i s char act eri zes the c o u rt’s a n a ly sis . If

th e c o u rt h a d m e a n t to f in d th a t th e stre n g th fac t orw as i n Sabi ns a’ s favorbutl es s i m por t antthan other fac t or s , i t coul d have s ai d s o. I ns t ead, t he D i s t r i ctC our tfound that th e str en g th o f th e F o rsL ea n m ark “d o es n o t sup p o rt P lai n ti ff ’s po sit ion

. ” T h is w as c lear erro r. O n c e a g a in , b e c a u se th e f a c ts u n d e rly in g th e stre n g th a n a ly si s ar e m anifestand un dis pu t ed, w e w i l l revi ew the fa c ts a n d la w to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e yc o m p e l a p a rticu lar re su lt. S a b in s a a rg u e s th a t F o rsL e a n is a rb itrar yo r su g g e stiv e , w h ile C reat i ve C om po un ds argues t hat i ti s a descri pti ve m ark becau se it co m b in e s a d e sc rip tio n o f th e p ro d u c t (“ f

o rs” ) w ith its i n t e n d e d a p p l i c a t i o n ( “ l e a n ” )

. W h i l e “ l e a n ” i s c e r t a i n l y a g en eric term , “f

o rs” is n o t y et o n e. T h e p arti es to this case are t he onl yt w o t h at u s e “f or s ” as an abbr evi at i on forfor s kohl i n, a n d w hil e F orsLea n is no ta t erm t hat w as cr eat ed co m plet ely outof w hol e cl ot h, i t cert ai nl y r equi r es cons um er“i m agi nat i on, th o u g h t, or p e rc e p tio n ” to d e ter m in e th e n a tu re o f th e p ro d u c t. See A & H

Spor t s w ear , 237 F. 3d at222. I tw oul d, thus , appea r t h a t Fo r s Le a n i s a s u g g e s t i v e ma r k

. M o r e o v e r , i tw as undi s put ed thatt h e F or s L ean mar k i s comm er ci al l ys t r ong. Ac c o r d i n g l y , t h i s f

a c t o rf a v o r s S a b i n s a a s a ma t t e ro f l a w. C . Purc has e r s ’ C ar e and So phi s t i c at i on (L app F act or T hree) “W hen cons um er s exer ci s e hei ght ened c a r e i n eval uat i ng th e rel evan tprodu ct s befo re m aking pu rchasi ng decis i on s, cour t s have found t her e i s not a s t r ong l i kel i hood of conf us i on.16 W h e re th e rel evan tprodu ct s ar e exp ensi ve, or the b uy er cl ass cons i s t s of s ophi s t i cat ed orpr ofes s i onal pur chas er s , cour t s have gener al l y not found L anham A ctvi ol at i ons . ” C heckp oint Sys. , 26 9 F

. 3d at28 4. H ow ever, w here the g ro u p o f bu y ers i s a com binat i on of professi on al s an d ordi narycon sum ers , the clas s a s a w h o le is n o t h e ld to th e h ig h e r s ta n d a rd o f c a re . I d. at285. U n d e r t h e h e a d in g “ [ p ]r ic e a n d c u s to m e r sop h is tic a tio n ,” t h e Di s t r i c tCou r tf

o u n d th a t“ t h e p r o d u c ti s e x p e n s i v e a n d the cus t om er s ar e s ophi s t i cat ed pur chas er s w ho pur chas e the p rod u ct a ft ercar eful t houghtand ana l y s i s . . . . U s ual l y , t he cus t om er s ar e r epe atcus t om er s . T hes e cus t om er s exer ci s e a hi gh l evel of car e, and, t her efor e, el i m i nat es [s i c] the l i kel i hood of co n fusi on . ” T he D i stri ctC ou rtal so no t ed that“t hese produ ct s ar e no tsol d o ver the co un t er” and that“bo t h p art i es’ c u sto m e rs r e g u lar ly a sk tec h n ica l q u e stio n s a b o u t th e sc ien tific an d saf etym erits o f th e p rod u ct prior to p u rch ase . ” T h e c o u rt t hus concl uded thatt hi s fac t orfavor s C r eat i ve C om pounds

. T he c o u rt f u rth e r w e ig h e d th is f a c to r h e a v ilyin its u lti m a te concl us i on t hatt her e i s no l i kel i hood of conf us i on. T he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s r eas oni ng i nappr opr i at el yt r eat s t he pr oduct s ’ di r ectbu y ers— h ere , t he manufactur er s of n ut r ace ut i cal s

— as t he onl yr el evantcons um er s . I n Kos , we cr i t i ci zed the part i es and the di s t r i ctcour tfort r eat i ng m edi cal profess i on a l s a s the on l yr e l e va nt consum ers of p harm aceuti cal s, not i ng t hat“drugs ar e i ncr eas i ngl ym arket ed di r ect l yt o pot ent i al p ati en t s thr ough, forexampl e, ‘ as k- y our - d o ctor-ab o u t- B ran d -X ’ s t y l e adve r t i s i ng. ” See Kos , 36 9 F

. 3d at71 5– 16

. H ere, S abinsa present ed evi dence

— compl et el ydi s r egar ded byt he D i s t r i ct C our t

— t hati tdi r ect l ym arket s For s L ean thr ough j us t t hi s type17 of adve r t i s i ng, di s t r i but i ng pamphl et s t o retail out l et s for d istrib u tio n to th e p u b lic. T h e a p p ro p ria te “ sta n d a rd o f c a re to be exe r ci s ed, ” ther efor e, s houl d have be en “e qual t o thatof the l eas ts ophi s t i cat ed cons u m eri n the cl as s ”— t he gene r al con sum er r eading a F orsLea n p am ph l etw ho t hen cho oses a n u tr a c e u tic a l c o n ta in in g f o rs k o h lin

. See C h eckpo i nt Sys. , 269 F. 3d at285 ( quot i ng Fo r d Mo to r C o . v . S u m m it Mo to rP r o d s ., I nc. , 9 3 0 F .3 d 2 7 7 , 2 9 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 1 )); c f

. Mo r g e n s t e r n Ch e m. C o. v. G

. D

. Sear l e & C o. , 253 F. 2d 390, 392 (3d C i r . 1958) (re c o g n izin g th a t “p h y sic ian s a n d p h a rm a c ists . . . a re c a re f u lly t r ai ned t o det ectdi ffe r ence s i n the cha r act er i s t i cs of pharm ace ut i cal pr oduct s , ” but hol di ng t hat t hi s “does notopen t he doort o t he adopt i on bym anufa ctur er s of m edi ci nes of tr adem arks ornames w hi ch w oul d be conf us i ngl y s i m i l ar t o any one notexer ci s i ng s uch gr eatcar e”)

. T he D i s t r i ctC our tt hus comm i t t ed l egal err orw hen i t concl uded thatthi s fac t orw ei ghs h e a v ily in f

a v o r o f C re a tiv e C o m p o u n d s . O nce a gai n, t he fa ct s are undi s put ed. T hough the pr i ce o f f o rsk o h lin to su p p liers is re lativ e ly h ig h , the n e u tra c e u tica ls t hatcont ai n for s kohl i n ar e cl ear l yaff or dabl e t o m os ti nt er es t ed cons um er s . Fur t her , t he s al es pr oces s i s as qui ck as a tr i p t o the chec k- outcount er . I n addi t i on, nut r aceu t i cal s , unl i ke pharm ac e u t i c a l s , r equi r e no cons ul t at i on w i t h a pr ofes s i onal and m ayoft en be i m pul s e p u r chas es . M or eover , t her e w as no sh o w in g th a t co n su m e rs o f n u tra c e u tica ls a r e h ig h ly s ophi s t i cat ed. A ccor di ngl y , thi s fac t orw ei ghs in favorof Sabi ns a. D . Lengt h of

Ti m e W i t hout C onf

us i on (L app F act or Four ) / Evi de nc e of

A c t ualC onf

us i on (L app Fa c t o r Si x)18 E v id e n c e o f

a c tu a l co n f

u sio n is f

re q u e n tlyd if

f icu lt t o f in d

. S e e C heckp oint

Sys. , 2 6 9 F

. 3 d a t2 9 1

. As a r e s u l t , we h a v e d e ter m in e d th a t ac tu a l c o n f u sio n is n o t n e c e ss a ryto d e m o n s tr a te a lik e lih o o d o f s u c c e s s . See F isons Hort i culture , 30 F

. 3d at47 2. E vidence o f a c tual confu si on i s nevertheles s h ig h ly p ro b a tiv e o f

a lik e lih o o d o f

c o n f u s i o n . See Checkpoi nt Sys. , 269 F. 3d at291. I t w as undi s put ed thatFor s L ean a nd F o rsth i n had co- exi s t ed forappr oxi m atelythree -an d -a-h alf y ea rs att he t i m e of tr i al w i t houtanyevi dence of ac tual conf u si on. M or eover , Sabi ns a fai l ed t o s ubm i ts ur veyevi dence conce r ni ng a c tu a l c o n f

u sio n . A c c o rd in g ly , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in con cl ud i ng t hat these factor s favo r C reat i ve C om po un ds. E . I nt ent of t he D ef

endant i n A dopti ng t h e M a rk (L app F act or Fi ve) E vi dence of a de fenda nt ’ s i nt ent i s nota pr er equi s i t e for fi n d ing a L an h am A ct vio lat ion ; suc h ev iden ce , h o w ev er, w ei ghs heavi l y i n favor of fi ndi ng a l i kel i hood o f c o nfus i on. See I d. at286. I n eval uat i ng t hi s fac t or , cour t s m us tl ook at w heth e rt he de fe nd a ntc ho s e the mar k t o i nt e nt i on a l l yc on fuse c o n su m e rs, a n d th e re b y c a p italiz e o n th e se n io r u se r’s g o o d w ill , and w hether t he def

endantgave a dequat e ca r e t o i nves t i gat i ng its p ro p o s e d m a rk

. See K os. , 3 6 9 F

. 3 d at 72 1

. “[ A ] de fe n d an t’ s m er e i nt entt o copy , w i t houtm or e, i s nots uffi ci ent l ypr obat i ve of the defe nd ant’ s success i n caus i ng confus i on t o w ei gh s uch a f in d in g in th e p lain tiff ’s f a v o r; ra th e r, d e f

e n d a n t’s in ten t w ill i ndi cat e a l i kel i hood of conf us i on o n ly i f an i nt entt o con f use cons um er s i s demonstr at ed v i a purpos eful m ani pul at i on of the j uni or m ark t o r es embl e the s eni or ’ s . ” A & H Spor t s w ear , 237 F. 3d at225–26.19 T he D i str ic tC our tdi d notm ent i on s peci fi c evi dence r egar di ng C r eat i ve C om pounds ’ s good or bad i nt ent ; r ather , the cour tfo u n d t hat“ther e i s not hi ng i n the r ecor d t o s ugges tt hat C r eat i ve C om pounds att emp ted t o pas s off i t s goods as Sabi ns a’ s . I n fac t , t he evi dence i s t o t he contr ary : C rea t i ve C o m p o u n d s h a s m a d e e f f o rts to d istin g u ish itse lf a n d its F orsthin produ ctfrom S a b in sa . ” T he record beli es these co n clus ion s. In f

ac t, fa r f rom there b eing “n o thing in the re co rd t o s ugges t ” bad i nt ent , ther e w as ampl e evi dence thatC rea t i ve C om po un ds at t em pted t o p ass off i t s produc tas Sab i nsa’s

. C r eat i ve C om pounds ’ per s onnel offe r ed i ncons i s t entt es t i m ony co n ce rnin g their trad em ar k sea rch es p ri o r t o the c o m p an y ’s adopt i ng t he For s t hi n m ark. T her e w as al s o evi dence that C re a tiv e C o m p o u n d s’s P re sid e n t an d C E O f a lse lyc laim e d to have c onduct ed r e s e a r ch thatexpande d on Sabi ns a’ s di s cover i es r egar di ng for s k ohl i n. I n addi t i on, the t i m i ng of C r eat i ve C om pounds ’ s adopt i on of the F o r s t hi n m ark and i t s pamphl et to u tin g th e “ re tu r n o f

C o leu s”

— b o th o f

w h ich c o in c id e d w ith For s L ean r enew i ng i t s s uppl yof for s kohl i n fol low i ng the d ro u g h t in I n d ia a n d iss u in g a “ F o rsL e a n p ro m ise ” to its cus t om er s r egar di ng cont i nued suppl y

— w oul d s uppor tan i nfer enc e thatC r eat i ve C om pounds i nt ended t o t r ade on S a b in sa ’s g o o d w ill a n d c o n f u se c u sto m e rs a s to th e so u rc e o f its p ro d u c t. Ind e e d , th e f

a c t th a t C re a tiv e C o m p o u n d s c h o s e “ f o rs ,” not“col eus , ” or “col e, ” or “col , ” as the fi r s ts y l l abl e of i t s br and name, w hi l e al s o pr om ot i ng the “r eturn of C ol eus , ” w oul d s ugges tt hatt he adopt i on of the “For s t hi n” br and name w as ai m ed at“For s L ean. ” T he D i s t r i ctC our tw as , of cour s e, perm i t t ed t o cr edi tor di s cr edi tcert ai n pi ece s of t es t i m onyand w ei gh them20 ac co rdin g ly

. B u t i n stat ing that there w as “ n o thing in the rec o rd to su g g est” C rea ti v e C o m p o u n d s’s b ad inten t, the D istri ct C o u rt fa il ed ev en to ac k n o w led g e the e x ist en ce o f c o n tr ad ict o ry evi dence

. A ccor di ngl y , i t s concl us oryfi ndi ng that this fac t or favo rs C reat i ve C om po un ds i s cl earl yerr on eou s. Sabi ns a ar gues t hat t he D i s t r i ctC ourtfai l ed t o appl yt he pr opers t andar ds governi ng i nt entand thatC r eat i ve C o m p o u n d s’s b e h a v io r in c h o o s in g a m a rk so sim ilar to F orsLea n s ho uld at l east be consi dered r eckles s, rendering it s uff ici entt o w ei gh t hi s fac t ori n Sabi ns a’ s favor

. I n Kos , we hel d t hat t he defenda nt ’ s adopt i on of the A L T O C O R m ark, aft er K os had s ucce s s ful l y us ed t he A D V I C O R m ark fo r si m i l ar goods and w i t h not i ce of i t s obj ect i ons , w as s uffi ci entt o w ei gh th is f a c to r i n f a v o r o f K o s . See 36 9 F

. 3d at72 1– 22

. B ecause t he D i s t r i ctC our ti n the inst antcas e i gnor ed w hol e s w aths of evi dence and fa i l ed t o m ake any s ubor di nat e fi ndi ngs r egar di ng in ten t, h o w e v e r, itis im p o ss ib le to d e ter m in e w h e th e r it app ropri at el ycom pr e he nd e d the s t a nd a r d. M or e ov er, i n co ntr ast t o t he A D V I C O R m ark, both “For s L ean” and “For s t hi n” bea r s om e r el at i ons hi p t o the unde rl y i ng pr oduct ; C r eat i ve C om pounds ’ s adopt i on of i t s m ark, al one, t her efor e ca nnotbe cons i der ed enough to w ei gh t he i nt entfac t orforSabi ns a. A ccor di ngl y , unl i ke the otherfac t or s , t he i nt entfac t ori nvol ves d ispu ted fa ctua l issue s, an d w e are u n ab le to h o ld tha t i t fav o rs e i t h e rp a r t ya s a ma t t e ro f l a w. F. W he t he r t he G oo ds ar e M ar ke t e d Throu gh t he S a m e C h a n n e ls o f T r a d e a n d A d v e r tise d in th e S a m e M e d ia (L app F actor S even )/ E x tent t o W h i ch T arg ets of the P arti es’ Sal es E f f ort s are t he Sam e (L app F a cto r E igh t)21 “The gr eat er t he si m i l ar i t yi n advert i s i ng and mar ket i ng campai g n s , t he gr eat erthe l i kel i hood of conf us i on. ” C heck

poi nt Sys. , 26 9 F

. 3d at28 8-89 (ci t at i on om i t t ed). A cou rtshou ld cons i dert he tr ade e xhi bi t i ons , publ i cat i ons , and other m edi a the part i es u se in m arket i ng t heirprodu ct s. See i d at489

. S i m i l a r l y, w hen th e p arti es t ar getthei rs al es eff or t s t o t he s ame gr oup of cons um er s , t her e i s a gr eat erl i kel i ho o d of conf us i on betw een th e tw o m a rk s . S e e id

. T he D i stri ctC ou rtdid not keyi t s oral fi nd i ng s t o these fa ctors, bu t no n ethe less n o ted th at th e p a rt ies w ere
“ c o m p e tit o rs.” In a n ye v e n t, i t is un d isp u ted th a t th e p a rties se ll t he s ame pr oductt hr ough th e sam e cha nnel s of tr ade a nd t he sam e form s o f adv ert i si ng t o t he sam e t argetgroup of cu st om ers . A ccor di ngl y , t hes e fa ct or s w ei gh i n favorof Sabi ns a as a mat t er o f l a w. G . R el at i onshi p of t he G oods i n t he M i nds of C on sum ers (L app F act or N i ne) W hen rul i ng on t hi s fac t or , a cour t s houl d l ook at“how s i m i l ar , orcl os el yr el at ed, the pr oduct s ar e. ” Kos. , 369 F. 3d at 723. I f the pr oduct s “fa l l undert he sam e gener al pr oduct cat egorybutoper at e i n di s t i nctni ches , ” theyw i l l pr obabl ynot b e c lo s e ly re la te d

. C heckp oint Sys. , 269 F. 3d at288 (hol di ng t hat t he D i stri ctC ou rtdid not cl earl yerri n findi ng t hat par t i es’ pr oduct s w er e unre l at ed even t hough both fel l undert he br oader cat egoryof “c orpor at e s ecur i t y ” w her e t he pl ai nt i ff f ocus ed on phy s i cal s ecur i t yand t he defenda ntfocus ed on i nform at i on and comput er se cur i t y )

. “The ques t i on i s w hethert he cons um er m i ght

. . . r eas onabl yconcl ude thatone com panyw oul d offe r22 bot h of thes e r el at ed pr oduct s . ” F isons Hort i culture , 30 F. 3d at 4 8 1

. T he D i s tr i ctC our tm ade no f i ndi ngs as t o t hi s fac t or , but it i s u n d isp u te d th a t th e p ro d u c ts a re p h y sic a llyid e n tica l. C rea ti v e C o m p o u n d s arg u es, as itd id w ith resp ec t t o m ark sim ilarity , tha t F o rsth in is a “ w e ig h t lo ss ” p ro d u c t w h ile F o rsL e a n is a “ lea n b o d ym a ss ” p ro d u c t. T h is a rg u m e n t is m isp lac e d b e c a u se th e p ro d u c ts a re p h y sic a llyid e n tica l an d b o th ar e mark e t e d a s wei g h tma n a g e me n tp r o d u c t s . Cr e a t i ve C o m p o u n d s f

u r th e r a rg u e s th a t b u y e rs p u rc h a se th e p ro d u c ts di r ect l yfr om t hei rs our ces and t hat “they ar e nec es s ar i l yaw ar e” t hat ForsL ean an d F orsthin ar e sol d b y separat e com pan i es. C ust om er s op his t i ca tion, ho w ever, i s Lapp f a c to r t h re e . Lapp fac t orni ne foc us es noto n co ns um ers ophi s t i cat i on buton the pr oduct s t hemsel ves , s ince t he det erm i nat i on i s w hether con sum ers m ay s e e th e m a s re la te d

. See Kos , 369 F. 3d at723. U s i ng t hats t andar d, thi s fac t orcl ear l yw ei ghs i n favorof S ab insa

. S ee Fis ons , 30 F. 3d at481 ( ci t i ng cas es w her e the r el at i ons hi p of g oods w as cl os e enough t o fi nd l i kel i hood of c o n f u sio n , inc lu d in g : w o m e n ’s s c a rv e s a n d a p p a re l w ith w om en’ s cos m et i cs and fr agr ance s ; l i quo rw i t h r es t aur ant sel l i ng l i qu or; batt eri es an d lam p s w i t h li gh tbu l bs and l am ps; a n d p ip e to b a c c o a n d b a r a c c e s s o ri e s w ith s c o tc h w h is k y ). H . O t her Fact s Suggest i ng t he P ubl i c M i ght E x pect the P ri or O w n er to M an u fact u re B o th P rod u cts (L app Fac t or Ten) I n m aki ng t hi s fi nal det erm i nat i on undert he Lapp tes t, cour t s s houl d “l ook at t he natur e of the pr oduct s ort he r el evant23 m arket , t he p ract i ces of o t her com pan i es i n the r el evan tfi el ds, any ot her ci r cumst ance s t hat bear on w hethercons um er s m i ght r eas onabl yexpec tbot h pr oduct s t o have t he same s our ce. ” Kos , 369 F. 3d at724. T he D i s t r i ctC our t m ad e n o fi ndi ngs not encompas s ed byt he otherfac t or s , and nei t herpar t yar gues t hat a n yre lev a n t e v id e n c e e x ists. A c c o rd in g ly , this f a c to r is n e u tra l. V . W ei ghi ng t he L app F act ors T h e m o st i m p o rtan t fac tors, m ark sim il arityan d m ark s tr e n g th , fa v o r S a b in sa . F o rsL e a n a n d F o rsth in a re sim ilar in appea r ance and meani ng, and For s L ea n i s ent i t l ed t o br oad pr ot ect i on beca us e i ti s a s t r ong m ark bot h conce ptual l yand c o m m e rc ially

. M o re o v e r, F o rsL e a n a n d F o rsth in a re p h y sic a lly i d e n t i c a l , t h e ya r e ma r k e t e d t o t h e s a me c u s t o me r s i n th e s a me w ay s , and the pr oduct s ’ ul t i m at e cons um er s d o n o t e xer ci s e a par t i cul ar l yhi gh l evel of ca r e and s oph ist i cat i on w hen pur chas i ng nut r ace ut i cal s . A ccor di ngl y , fac t or s one, t w o, t hr ee, sev en , e ig h t, an d n ine f av o r S ab insa as a m att er o f law

. In contr as t , s i nce the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ngs r egar di ng l ack of actual confus i on ar e s uppor t ed byt he r ec o rd, fa ct or s fourand si x fav or C reat i ve C om po un ds. T her e i s a fa ctual d isput e conc erni ng C r eat i ve C om pounds ’ s i nt ent i n cr eat i ng i t s m ark. E ven as s um i n g t hat t he D i s t r i ctC our tw oul d comp l et el ydi s cr edi tthe evi dence of b ad inten t, h o w ev er, i t w o u ld b e clea r e rror to all o w the f ac tors i n favo ro f

Cr e a t i v e Comp o u n d s t o o u t wei g h Sa b i n s a ’ s s t r o ng s how i ng on m ark s i m i l ar i t y and t he r emai ni ng fac t or s . W e have rep ea tedlyh eld th at ne ith er inten t n o r a ctua l con fu sion are p re re q u is ite s to a f

in d in g o f lik e lih o o d o f c o n f u s io n . See24 C heckp oint

Sys. , 2 6 9 F .3 d a t 2 8 6 , 2 9 1 . A s th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls forthe Second C i r cui t has obs erved, “i nt enti s l ar gel yi r r el evant i n det erm i ni ng i f cons um er s l i kel yw i l l be conf us ed as t o s our ce. T h e h i s t o r yo f

a d v e r t i s i n g s u g g e s t s th a tc o n s u me rr e a c t i ons u s u a l l y a r e u n r e l a t e d t o ma n u f a c tu r e r i n t e n t i o ns . ” L o is Spor t s w ear, U

. S. A

. , I

nc. v. Levi S tr aus s & Co. , 799 F. 2d 867, 875 ( 2d C i r . 1986)

. L i kew i s e, w e have r ecogni zed thatevi dence of ac tual confus i on i s oft en di ffi cul tt o fi nd beca us e many in s ta n c e s g o u n re p o rt e d

. C heckp oint Sys. , 269 F. 3d at291. A s w e di d i n Kos , w e have car eful l ycons i der ed w hether t o di r ectt he D i s t r i ct C o u rt on r emand t o r e- w ei gh the Lapp fac t or s i n l i ght of t he pr oper l egal s t andar ds

. W e conc l ude o n c e a g a in “ th a t d o i n g s o w o u ld s e rv e n o u s e f u l p u rp o s e . . . [and] w as t e j udi ci al r es our ces . ” See Kos , 369 F. 3d at 725. T he undi s put ed fa ct s w ei g h h ea v il yi n favorof Sabi ns a as a mat t er of l aw , and any r eas onabl e fact fi nderw ei ghi ng the Lapp fa ctors i n acc or dance w i t h t he corr ect l egal s t andar ds w oul d hol d t hat S a b in s a h a d d e m o n s tr a te d a lik e lih o o d o f c o n f u s io n . See i d. ; c

f. F is ons , 30 F

. 3d at48 2 (G arth co ncu rr i ng ) ( “I can see no p urpose in re m a n d in g f

o r re trial o f F iso n s’ L a n h a m A c t c laim s w h e n it is s o e v id e n t th a t th e m a rk s a t issu e h e re a re c o n f u sin g ly

s i m i l ar . ”)

. A ccor di ngl y , w e s ee no r eas on t o r emand forfur t her anal y s i s on l i kel i hood of conf us i on. V I . C oncl usi on Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l r ever s e the j udgm ent in fa v o r o f C rea ti v e C o m p o u n d s an d rem an d this case fo r en try25 of jud g m enti n favorof Sabi ns a and f orotherpr ocee di ngs not i ncons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on.Sa b i n s a Corp . v . Cr e a t i v e Comp o u n d s LLC N o. 08- 3255

A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge, concurr i ng I jo in Ju d g e R o th ’s e x c e llen t o p in io n in f u ll, a n d w rite s e p a ra telyo n lyto emphasi ze tw o unus ual fea tur es of thi s cas e. Fi r s t , Sabi ns a off er ed no evi dence of ac tual

c o n f u sio n , a f

a c to r th a t w e h a v e p re v io u slyd e sc rib e d a s “ h ig h lyp ro b a tiv e ” in th is

c o n te x t. C heck

poi ntSys

. v. C heck

P oi ntSof

tw ar e Techs

. , I

nc. , 2 6 9 F

. 3 d 2 7 0 , 2 9 1 (3d C ir

. 2001)

. T hi s i s es peci al l yconce r ni ng her e, w her e Sabi ns a coul d have e as i l yconduct ed a

s u r v e yo f c u s t o me r s t o a s s e s s a c tu a l c o n f u s i o n i n th e r e l e v a n tma r k e t
. Gi v e n th i s , we

c o u ld re a so n a b lyin f

e r th a t S a b in sa e x p e c ted th a t an ysu rv e yre su lts w o u ld u n d e rm in e its

ca se. N o n ethe less, “[ e]v iden ce o f a ctua l con fu sion is no t r eq u ir ed , ” a n d Ju d g e R o th’s Lapp anal y s i s convi nces m e that , “w hi l e evi dence of ac tual confus i on w oul d s t r engthen pl ai nt i ff’ s cas e, i ti s notes s ent i al

. ” F is ons H or t i cul t ur e, I

nc. v. V igor o I ndus

. , I nc. , 30 F

. 3 d 4 6 6 , 4 7 6 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 4 ). S econ d, t he D i stri ctC ou rtcon cl ud ed thatthe “co nsum ers w ho pu rchase[d] these
pr oduct s [w e] r e s ophi s t i cat ed us er s i n t he bus i nes s of m arket i ng and/ orm anufa ctur i ng d iet arysu p p lem en ts. ” In d ee d , the re co rd su g g ests that the p arti es’ p ri m arytarge ts w ere t he m anu facturer s of ret ai l i t em s and n ot ei t her r et ai l ers or r et ai l con sum ers . B ecause

m anufa ctur i ng r equi r es a bas e l evel of expe r t i s e and a t t ent i on t o i ngr edi ent s , i n t he mi nerun cas e s uch pur chas er s ar e expe ct ed t o be s ophi s t i cat ed enough t o di s t i ngui s h betw een br ands

— even w hen the r el evantbr ands have na m es as s i m i l aras “For s t hi n” and2

“For s L ean. ” A s w e have pr evi ous l yexpl ai ned, “[w ] hen cons um er s exer ci s e hei ght ened

car e i n eval uat i ng t he r el evantpr oduct s befor e maki ng pur chas i ng deci s i ons , cour t s have found ther e i s nota s t r ong l i kel i hood of conf us i on. ” C heck

poi nt , 269 F. 3d at284. Y et J udge R ot h’ s opi ni on agai n per s uades m e thatot herfac t or s i n t he Lapp analy si s, i ncl udi ng m ark s t r ength and mar k s i m i l ar i t y , outw ei gh conce r ns aboutthe s ophi s t i cat i on and ca r e of the t ar getaudi ence . Fur t herm or e, ther e i s evi dence i n t he r ecor d t hatw eake ns t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s anal y s i s ( oratl eas tthe w ei ghti tat t r i but ed t o t hi s fac t or ) , i ncl udi ng

e v id e n c e th a t m a n u f

a c tu re rs in th is s p e c if

ic in d u stryv a ryc o n sid e ra b lyin o v e ra ll

s ophi s t i cat i on and ca r e.