2007 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 6-13-2007 

# E ve rett L a b Inc v . V e r t ic al P h arm Inc P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-1661

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_2007

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 2007 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 " E ve r e tt L a b Inc v . V e r t ical P h arm Inc " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 949. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/949NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

__________ N o. 06- 1661

__________ E V E R E T T L A B O R A T O R IE S , IN C ., A ppel l ant

v. VERT I CAL P HARM ACEUTI CALS , I NC.

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

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 05- cv- 05926) D i stri ctJudg e: H on orabl e D i ckinson R . D ebev ois e

__________ A r gued on M ay10, 2007 B efore: R E N D E L L , JO R D A N , and A L D ISE R T , * C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: J une 13, 2007 )

__________________ * H o n o ra b le R u g g e ro J. A ld ise rt, S e n io r Ju d g e o f th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls forthe Thi r d C i r cui t , part i ci pat ed vi a audi oconfe r ence .2

K evi n W . G oer i ng [ ARGUE D] Sheppar d, M ul l i n, R i cht er& H ampt on 30 R ockef

el l erC ent er , 24th Fl oor N ew Y or k, N Y 10112 D o n J. P e lto J ul i e A . H opki ns Sheppar d, M ul l i n, R i cht er& H ampt on 1300 “I ” Str eet , N W , 11th Fl oor W as hi ngt on, D C 20005 C ouns el f orAppel lant E ver et tLaborator i es , I

nc. C h a r l e s P . K e n n e d y [ ARGUE D] R oyH . W epner Sam antha M . K amer os L erner , D avi d, L i t t enber g, K ru m h o lz & M e n tli k 600 Sout h A venue W es t , 3r d Fl oor W es t fi el d, N J 07090- 1497 C ouns el f orAppel l ee V e r tic a l P h a r m a c e u tic a ls , In c ..

__________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________
R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. E ver ettL abor at or i es ( “Ever ett ”) appea l s fr om the J anuary13, 2006 or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s eydeny i ng E ver ettan i nj unct i onB e c a u se d isc o v e ryh a d n o t y e t tak e n p lac e , the D istric t C o u rt re so lv e d th is c a se so lely 1 on the bas i s of the af

fi davi t s and dec l ar at i ons s ubm i t t ed bythe part i es . O urr eci t at i on of the fa ct s i s nece s s ar i l yder i ved fr om thes e unt es t ed s ubm i s s i ons , though w e emphas i ze again that the p art i es l argel ydo no tdis agree on the essenti al fact s. 3 a g a i n s tApp e l l e e Vert i c a l Ph a r ma c e u t i c a l s ( “ Vert i c a l ” ) f o ru s i n g th e ma r k “ CO RV I TE” as a nam e for V ert i cal ’s prescr i pti on vit am i n p roduct. E veret targued that V ert i cal ’s use of thatname i nfr i nged on Ever ett ’ s “ST R O V I T E ” mar k, w hi ch Ever ettal s o appl i es t o a pr es cr i pt i on vi t ami n pr oduct , i n vi ol at i on of §§ 32 and 43( a) of the Lanham A ct . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdet erm i ned thatE ver ettw as unl i kel yt o s ucce ed on the mer i t s aft erfi ndi ng that relev an t con su m ers w ere n o t l ikelyto b e c o n fu sed b ythe tw o n am es. W e w il l aff irm th e o rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. I . Fac t ualand Pr oc e dur alBackg r ound T he fa ct s of thi s cas e ar e noti n s i gni fi cantdi s put e. 1 S in c e 1 9 8 5 , E v e re tt h a s m a n u f a c tu re d , m a rk e ted a n d so ld p re sc rip tio n v itam in su p p lem e n ts. A lth o u g h m o st v itam in s a re so ld o v e r th e c o u n ter , E v e re tt co m p e tes in w h a t itc h a ra c ter ize s a s th e “ n a rro w m a rk e t se g m e n t o f p re sc rip tio n v itam in s uppl ement s . ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r i ef a t6. Si nce i t s i ncept i on, E ver etthas s ol d the p re s c ri p tio n v ita m in S T R O V IT E a n d , o v e r t h e y e a rs , h a s a d d e d “ S T R O V IT E P L U S ,”

“ S T R O V IT E F O R T E ,” a n d “ S T R O V IT E A D V A N C E ” to its lin e o f p ro d u c ts. E v e re tt c l a i ms t o h a v e s p e n to v e r$ 2 mi l l i o n ma r k e t i n g a n d a d v e r t i s i n g th e s e p r o d u c t s . On M a y1 , 2 0 0 1 , the U n ited S tate s P a ten t & T ra d e m a rk O f f ice (“ U S P T O ” ) g ra n ted E v e re tt aT hi s w as notan ami cabl e part i ng, as evi dence d both bythi s s ui tand a s epar at e one 2 curr ent l ypendi ng betw een Ever ettand V ert i cal i n N ew J er s eys t at e court . B oth part i es agr ee thatthe i s s ues i n t he s t at e courtcas e do notbearon thos e pr es ent ed her e. 4 tr ademar k r egi s tr at i on forthe mar k “ST R O V I T E . ” Ever ettappar ent l yhas nots ought s e p a ra te re g is tr a tio n f

o r t h e f u ll n a m e s o f

its o th e r S T R O V IT E p ro d u c ts . I n 2003, thr ee Ever ettempl oy ees l eftthe companyt o found V ert i cal . O verthe 2 s p r i n g a n d s u mm e ro f

2 0 0 3 , Ve r t i c a l d e v e l o p e d a n d b e g a n t o ma r k e ta n d s e l l i t s o wn p re s c ri p tio n v ita m in s u p p le m e n t – C O R V IT E . In d e c id in g u p o n th e n a m e “ C O R V IT E ,” V ert i cal cl ai m s thati tcombi ned the w or ds “cor e” – a s i n “cor e nutr i ent s , ” s i gni fy i ng t he m edi cal nece s s i tyof the i ngr edi ent s – w i th “vi t e” – a s uffi x V ert i cal cl ai m s r epr es ent s t he w o rd “ v itam in .” V e rtica l h a s n o t y e t re g iste re d “ C O R V IT E ” w ith th e U S P T O , tho u g h it has t aken s om e s t eps t o do s o. Bo th S TROVI TE a n d CORVI TE a r e s o l d i n th e s a me f a s h i o n a n d t o th e s a me peopl e: s al es r epr es ent at i ves per s onal l yvi s i tdoct or s ’ offi ces and l eave l i t er atur e or s a m p le b o x e s b e h in d to e n c o u ra g e d o c to rs to p re s c ri b e th e p ro d u c t in th e f u tu re . W hol es al er s w i l l pur chas e the vi t ami ns and di s tr i but e them t o pharm aci es i n ant i ci pat i on of f utur e prescr i pti on s. E v ere ttb ec am e a w are o f C O R V IT E o n A u g u st 8, 20 0 5 an d , sh o rt lythere af ter, n o t i f i e d Vert i c a l o f

i t s b e l i e f

th a tCO RV I TE’ s n a me i n f r i n g e d o n Ev e r e t t ’ s “ STROV I TE” m ark. O n A ugus t25, 2005, E ver ettcl ai m s thati tbegan r ece i vi ng r eport s of conf us i on a mon g s td o c t o r s a n d p h a r ma c i s t s a s t o th e e x i s t e n c e o f a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e twee n CO RV I TEE ver ett ’ s s ui tnotonl yal l eged thatC O R V I T E i nfr i nged on i t s “ST R O V I T E ” mar k but 3 al s o thatV ert i cal ’ s us e of the mar k “O B C O M PL E T E ” fori t s pr enat al vi t ami n pr oduct i nfr i nged on the tr ademar k forE ver ett ’ s ow n pr enat al vi t ami n, “V I T A FO L O B . ” Ho we v e r , E v e r e t td i d n o ts e e k a p r e l i mi n a ryi n j u n c t i o n a s t o Ve r t i c a l ’ s u s e o f OB C O M PL E T E . A ddi t i onal l y , E ver ett ’ s m ot i on fora pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on w as not p re m is e d o n a n ya rg u m e n ts p e rt a in in g to its § 4 3 (a ) t ra d e d re s s o r s ta te la w c la im s . T her efor e, the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng w as onl yas t o E ver ett ’ s l i kel i hood of s ucce edi ng on 5 a n d E v e re tt. In re sp o n se , an d in a n ticip a tio n o f th is liti g a tio n , E v e re tt g a th e re d a f f id a v its fr om thos e w ho ei thercl ai m ed t o have w i tnes s ed conf us i on ( fi ve Ever etts al es r eps ) or ex p erien ce d su ch co n fu sion p erso n all y(five N ew Jerse yp h arm ac ist s). O n D ece m ber23, 2005, E ver ettfi l ed s ui tagai ns tV ert i cal i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s eyal l egi ng tr ademar k i nfr i ngementunder§ 32 of the Lanham A ct , 15 U . S. C . § 1114; unfai rcompet i t i on under§ 43( a) of the Lanham A c t, 15 U .S .C . § 1 1 2 5 (a ); tra d e d re ss in f rin g e m e n t u n d e r § 4 3 (a ) o f th e L a n h a m A c t, 1 5 U . S . C . § 1 1 2 5 ( a ) ; tr a d e m a r k i n f r i n g e m e n tu n d e rth e c o m m o n l a w o f N e w J e r s e y; t or t i ous i nt er fer ence w i th exi s t i ng contr actual r el at i ons hi ps underthe comm on l aw of N ew J er s ey ; t or t i ous i nt er fer ence w i th pr os pect i ve contr actual r el at i ons hi ps underthe c o m m o n law o f

N e w Je rse y ; an d u n f

a ir c o m p e tit io n u n d e r N .J.S .A . § 5 6 :4 -1 . S h o rtly ther eaf t er , E ver etts oughtand obt ai ned fr om the D i s tr i ctC our tan or dert o s how caus e as t o w hya pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on – pr event i ng V ert i cal fr om “s el l i ng, m anufa ctur i ng, m arket i ng, advert i s i ng ordi s tr i but i ng anyvi t ami n, m i ner al ornutr i t i onal s uppl ement p ro d u c t b e a rin g th e C O R V IT E m a rk o r a n ym a rk o r b ra n d n a m e c o n f u sin g lysim ilar to E ver ett ’ s ST R O V I T E m ark” – s houl d notbe i s s ued. 3i t s § 32 and § 43( a) tr ademar k and unfa i rcompet i t i on cl ai m s as t o the us e of

“ S T R O V IT E ” a n d “ C O R V IT E .” 6 O n J anuary13, 2006, the D i s tr i ctC our thear d ar gum enton the mot i on and, the s ame day , deni ed i tvi a an or al opi ni on. I n doi ng s o, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notpr ocee d pas tthe fi r s tpr ong of the fa m i l i arfour - pr ong t es tfora pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on: l i kel i hood of suc cess on t he m eri t s. T he C ou rtrecogn i zed that , t o p revai l on i t s L anh am A ctcl ai m s, E v e re tt h a d to “ d e m o n stra te th a t (1 ) it h a d a v a lid a n d leg a llyp ro tec tab le m a rk ; (2 ) [ th a t] i tow ns thatm ark; and ( 3) [thatV ert i cal ’ s ] us e of the mar k t o i dent i fygoods ors ervi ces caus es a l i kel i hood of conf us i on. ” A & H

Sp ort sw ear, Inc. v. V

i ct ori a’s Secret

Stores , I nc. (A & H V

) , 237 F. 3d 198, 210 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( br acke t s added) . B eca us e ther e w as no di s put e as t o t he fi r s ttw o of thes e el ement s , the D i s tr i ctC our tconfi ned i t s anal y s i s t o the q u e s t i o n o f

whe th e rc o n s u me r s wer e l i k e l yt o b e c o n f u s e d b yth e ma r k s “ STROV I TE” and “CO R V I T E , ” det erm i ni ng thatthe i s s ue w as governed byw hati s now know n as t he t en “ Lapp Fact or s , ” i n r efe r ence t o ourdeci s i on i n I nt er pace Corp. v. Lapp, I

nc. , 721 F. 2d 4 6 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 3 ). A fter ex am ining thes e f ac tors, w h ich a re se t fo rth b elow , the C o u rt c o n c l u d e d th a tth e r e was n o l i k e l i h o o d o f c o n f u s i n g “ STROV I TE” wi th “ CO RV I TE” and , therefore, that Ev erettw as unli kelyt o succe ed o n the m eri t s. E ver ettnow appea l s , ar gui ng thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tm ade numer ous err or s of l aw i n appl y i ng the Lapp Fact or s and that , ther efor e, i tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng E ver ett ’ s m ot i on fora pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on. E ver ettas ks thatw e ei thervaca t e the7

D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derand r emand w i th i ns truct i ons cons i s t entw i th E ver ett ’ s vi ew of the l aw or , bett ery et , thatw e ent era pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on our s el ves . W e choos e nei ther opt i on beca us e w e conc l ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng E ver ett ’ s m ot i on. I I . Juri s di ct i on and St andard of R evi ew W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w t h i s i n t e r l o c u t o rya p p e a l u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1292( a) ( 1) . “W e r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fac tual det erm i nat i ons forcl earerr or , but w e gi ve pl enaryr evi ew t o i t s l egal concl us i ons . ” A & H V , 237 F. 3d at210. “W e r evi ew the d en ial o f a p reli m inaryinjun cti o n fo r an ‘ab u se o f d iscreti o n , an erro r of law , o r a cl earm i s t ake i n t he cons i der at i on of pr oof. ’ ” Kos P har m s . , I nc. v. A ndr

x C or p. , 369 F. 3d 700, 708 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng A m. T e l . & T e l . Co . v . Wi n b a c k

& Co n v e rs e P r o g r a m, I nc. , 42 F. 3d 1421, 1427 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ) . A s m ent i oned above , the cruci al ques t i on b ef o re the D istri ct C o u rtw as w h ethe r E v ere tth as sh o w n a li k eli h o o d that co n su m ers w oul d confus e the tw o m arks . I n r evi ew i ng the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s anal y s i s , w e ar e mi ndful that“[l ] i kel i hood of conf us i on i s a fa ctual ques t i on . . . butl egal pr i nci pl es govern w hat evi dence m ay , orm us t , be cons i der ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our ti n r eac hi ng thatconcl us i on, and al s o w hats t andar ds appl yt o i t s det erm i nat i on. ” A & H V , 237 F. 3d at210.8

I I I . A ppl i cabl e L aw T o o b tai n a p reli m inaryinjun cti o n , E v ere tth ad the b u rde n o f sh o w ing “(1 ) a l i kel i hood of s ucce s s on the mer i t s ; ( 2) thati tw i l l s uffe ri rr epar abl e harm i f the i nj unct i on i s deni ed; ( 3) thatgr ant i ng pr el i m i naryr el i ef w i l l notr es ul ti n even gr eat erharm t o the non- m ovi ng party ; and ( 4) thatthe publ i c i nt er es tfavor s s uch r el i ef. ” Kos , 369 F. 3d at 7 0 8 (cit ati o n s an d q u o tat ion s o m itted). W i th r es pectt o t he fi r s tel ement , nei therpartydi s put es the l aw governi ng the m er i t s of thi s cas e: E ver etthad the bur den bef or e the D i s tr i ctC our tof s how i ng that “ST R O V I T E ” i s a “va l i d and l egal l ypr ot ect abl e mar k, ” thatE ver ettow ns the mar k and th a t V e rt ic a l’ s u s e o f

th e m a rk c a u s e s a “ lik e lih o o d o f c o n f u s io n ” in th e m a rk e tp la c e . B o th p a rt ie s c o n tin u e to a g re e th a t E v e re tt h a s s a tis f ie d th e f ir s t tw o o f

th e s e e le m e n ts . T he ques t i on, ther efor e, i s w hetherthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n fi ndi ng thatE ver etthad fai l ed to show a l i keli ho od of co nfu si on betw een the tw o m arks. A “ lik e lih o o d o f

c o n f u sio n ” e x ists w h e n “ ‘c o n su m e rs v iew in g th e m a rk w o u ld pr obabl yas s um e thatthe pr oductors ervi ce i tr epr es ent s i s as s oci at ed w i th the s our ce of a di ffe r entpr oductors ervi ce i dent i fi ed bya s i m i l arm ark. ’ ” A & H V , 237 F. 3d at211 ( quot i ng D r anof

f
- P er l s t ei n A s s ocs . v. Sklar , 967 F. 2d 852, 862 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ) . T he ques t i on i s notw hethera courtcoul d i m agi ne thatanycons um erm i ghtpos s i bl ybe confus ed bythe def

endant ’ s m ark but , r ather , w hether“an appr eci abl e num berof ordinari l y prud ent consum ers of the type of pr oducti n ques t i on ar e l i kel yt o be conf us edI n Kos , the C our tques t i oned w hetherthe appr opr i at e s t andar d forcas es i nvol vi ng 4 drugs, such as Kos i t s el f, w as “pos s i bi l i tyof conf us i on” r atherthan “l i kel i hood of confus i on. ” Kos , 369 F. 3d at716 n. 13. A l though Kos n e v e r re so lv e d th e q u e stio n , b o th o f th e p a rt ie s in th a t c a s e a g re e d th a t “ lik e lih o o d o f c o n f u s io n ” w a s th e p ro p e r s ta n d a rd . Id . H ow ever , i n an ea r l i eri t er at i on of A & H, the C our ti dent i fi ed the l ack of cl ar i tyover the s t andar d and hel d, defi ni t i vel y , that“the appr opr i at e s t andar d fordet erm i ni ng tr ademar k i nfr i ngementunderthe Lanham A cti s l i kel i hood of conf us i on. ” A & H S p o r t s we a r, I n c . v . Vi c t o r i a ’s S e c r e tS t o r e s , I n c . ( A & H I V) , 1 6 6 F . 3 d 1 9 7 , 2 0 5 (3d C ir . 1999) . A l though A & H I V d id n o t i n v o lve d rug s, there is no q u esti o n that the C o u rt ’s in te n t w a s to p u t to re s t a lo n g -r u n n in g , a n d m u c h c ri tic iz e d , a m b ig u ity in o u r p ri o r l a w . See 3 J . M c C a rt h y , Trade m arks and U nf ai rC om pet i t i on , § 23: 3. R egar dl es s , nei ther E ver ettnorV ert i cal s ugges tnow thatthe s t andar d i s anythi ng otherthan “l i kel i hood of c o n f u s io n .” 9 a s to th e s o u rc e o f

th e g o o d s .” V

ers a P r od. C o. , I

nc. v. B i f old C o. ( M f g. ) Ltd. , 50 F. 3d 4 1 8 9 , 2 0 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). I n Lapp , w e i dent i fi ed t en fa ct or s t o w hi ch a c our tm ayl ook t o r es ol ve s uch ques t i ons . A l though t hes e fa ct or s w er e i ni t i al l ydes i gned forcas es i nvol vi ng noncompet i ng goods , i n A & H V w e adapt ed them for us e i n compet i ng- goods cas es , s uch as th is o n e . S e e A & H V

, 237 F. 3d at212- 213. T hes e fa ct or s ar e: ( 1) the degr ee of

s i m i l ar i tybetw een the ow ner ’ s m ark and the al l eged i nfr i ngi ng m ark; ( 2) the s tr ength of the ow ner ’ s m ark; ( 3) the pr i ce of

the goods and otherfac t or s i ndi cat i ve of the ca r e and att ent i on expec t ed of c ons um er s w hen maki ng a pur chas e ( i . e. , “cons um er so p h ist icati o n ”); ( 4) the l ength of t i m e the def endanthas us ed the mar k w i thoutevi dence of actual confus i on ar i s i ng; ( 5) the i nt entof the def endanti n adopt i ng the mar k; ( 6) the evi dence of ac tual confus i on; ( 7) w hetherthe goods , compet i ng ornotcompet i ng, ar e mar ket ed thr ough the s ame channel s of tr ade a nd advert i s ed thr ough the s ame m edi a; ( 8) the ext entt o w hi ch the t ar get s of the part i es ’ s al es eff or t s ar e the s ame;10

( 9) the r el at i ons hi p of the goods i n the mi nds of cons um er s , w hether beca us e of the nea r - i dent i tyof the pr oduct s , the s i m i l ar i tyof func t i on, or otherfac t or s ; and ( 10) ot herfac t s s ugges t i ng thatthe cons um i ng publ i c mi ghtexpec tthe pr i or o w n e r to m a n u f

a c tu re b o th p ro d u c ts, o r e x p e c t th e p rio r o w n e r to m anufa ctur e a pr oducti n t he def endant ’ s m arket , orexpec tthe pr i orow ner is lik e lyto e x p a n d in to th e d e f e n d a n t’s m a rk e t. See Kos , 369 F. 3d at709 ( ci t i ng A & H V , 2 3 7 F . 3 d at 21 5 ). A l though w e have encour aged the us e of thes e fa ct or s , a di s tr i ctcourtneed not e n g a g e in a p re c ise a c c o u n tin g o f e a c h a n d e v e ryo n e . “N o n e o f th e se f a c to rs is 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 ea ch fa ct orm us tbe w ei ghed and bal ance d one aga i ns tthe other . ” C heckp oint Sys. , Inc. v. C heck P oint So f tw are Techs . , I nc. , 2 6 9 F .3 d 2 7 0 , 2 8 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). A lth o u g h , this “ ‘is n o t to sa yth a t all fac t or s m us tbe gi ven equa l w ei ght . ’ ” Kos , 369 F. 3d at709 ( quot i ng F is ons H or t i cul t ur e, I nc. v. V igor o I ndus . , I nc. , 30 F. 3d 466, 476 n. 11 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ) . I ns t ead, “‘ di ffe r ent fac t or s m aypr oper l ybe ac cor ded di ffe r entw ei ght s dependi ng on the part i cul arfac tual s ett i ng. A di s tr i ctcourts houl d ut i l i ze the fa ct or s thats eem appr opr i at e t o a gi ven s i tuat i on. ’ ” Kos , 369 F. 3d at709 ( quot i ng A & H V , 2 3 7 F . 3 d a t2 1 5 ) . I m p o r t a n t l y, h o w e v e r, “a d istric t co u rt m a y , if it so c h o o se s, e x a m in e o n lym a rk sim ilarityf o r d ire c tly compet i ng goods . ” A & H V , 237 F. 3d at214. I ndeed, the “s i ngl e mosti m por t antfac t or i n det erm i ni ng l i kel i hood of conf us i on i s m ark s i m i l ar i ty . ” Id . at216.T he D i s tr i ctC our tm ayhave ove r emphasi zed mi s di s pens i ng as compar ed t o s our ce 5 c o n f u s io n a n d c o n c e n tr a te d to o m u c h o n c o n s u m e r s o p h is tic a tio n . See, e. g. , Kos , 369 F .3 d a t 7 1 8 (“ T h e re is n o re a so n to b e liev e th a t m e d ica l ex p e rtise a s to p ro d u c ts w ill o b v iat e c o n fu sion as to so u rce o r af fil iat ion o r oth er f

ac tors af fe cti n g g o o d w il l. ”). 11 I V . D i s cus s i on E v e re tt a rg u e s th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rt e rr e d in its a n a lysis b y , in tera lia , fa ili n g to cons i derand appr opr i at el yw ei gh al l t en Lapp fac t or s . O ver al l , w e thi nk thatthe D i s t r i ct C o u rt, w h ile it m a yh a v e f o c u se d o n c e rta in a sp e c ts m o re th a n o th e rs, d id n o t ab u se its 5 di s cr et i on i n fi ndi ng a l ack of confus i on. W e s o concl ude bas ed notonl yon the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s r eas oni ng and r es ul t , butal s o beca us e w e thi nk the D i s tr i ctC our tover s t at ed the s im ila ri ty o f

th e m a rk s – th e “ s in g le m o s t im p o rt a n t f a c to r.” In a n a ly z in g th e f

irst Lapp fac t or , the D i s tr i ctC our ts ai d: T h e ye a c h h a v e o b v io u s s im ila ri ty o f a ‘v ite ’ a t th e e n d o f

th e [ s ic ]. N a m e , co m b in e d w ith th e v ite, w h ich th e p a rties se e m to a g re e re late s to vi t ami ns , i s the arbi tr aryone s y l l abl e pr efi x C - O - R i n one ca s e, and S- T - R - O i n t he other . T he combi nat i on cr eat es an arbi tr aryar c and na m e, even though t he def

endantattr i but es the w or d cor e, C - O - R - E , as the s our ce of the C - O - R i n C or vi t e. T hus , ther e ar e s i m i l ar i t i es . T he us e of the vi t e, a n d a n a rb i tr a r y o n e s yl l a b l e p r e f i x w h i c h h a s s o m e e l e m e n to f s i m i l a r i ty, C- O- R/ S - T- R- O, b e a r i n g s o me s u p e r f i c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , a s e v i d e n c e d b ymy pr evi ous m i s pr onunci at i on of C or vi t e as C r ovi t e. A ppx. at18. H o w e v e r, w h e n d e ter m in in g m a rk sim ilarity , “th e g e n e ra l ru le th a t m a rk s s h o u ld b e v iew ed in the iren ti retyd o es n o t un d erm ine th e c o m m o n -sen se p rec ep t th at th e m o re for cef ul and di s t i nct i ve as pect s of a mar k s houl d be gi ven more w ei ght , and the other12

as pect s l es s w ei ght . ” A & H V , 2 3 7 F .3 d a t 2 1 6 . S e e a lso C o u n try F lo o rs , In c . v. P ’sh ip C om po sed of G epn er andFord , 930 F. 2d 1056, 1065 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ( quot i ng G i antFood, I nc. v. N at i on’s Foods er vi ce, I

nc. , 710 F. 2d 1565, 1570 ( Fed. C i r . 1983) ( “W hen co m p aring tw o m ark s ea ch m u st be v iew ed in it s en ti rety , alth o u g h ‘on e f ea ture o f a m ark m aybe more s i gni fi cantthan otherfea tur es , and i ti s pr opert o gi ve gr eat erfor ce a nd e f f e c t to th a t d o m in a n t f

e a tu re .’” ); 3 J . M c C a rt h y , Trade m arks and U nf ai rC om pet i t i on , § 23: 48 ( the “i ncl us i on of a [ comm on, des cr i pt i ve] s uffi x m ayal one be a n i ns uffi ci ent b asis to f ind a li k eli h o o d o f c o n fu sion w h ere the in it ial p o rt ion s o f th e m ark are su ff ici en tl yind ist ing u isha b le”). H er e, the “V I T E ” port i on of both m arks i s a comm onl yunder s t ood des cr i pt i ve t erm – cal l i ng t o m i nd “vi t ami n” – of l i t t l e i ndepende ntfor ce ordi s t i nct i venes s that s houl d have be en gi ven l es s erw ei ghtthan the mar ks ’ m or e di s t i nct i ve as pect s – the “C O R ” and “ ST R O ” pr efi xes . T her efor e, the D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d have f ocus ed t o a gr eat erext enton “C O R ” and “ ST R O ” w hen det erm i ni ng the mar ks ’ s i m i l ar i ty . I n our vi ew , a compar i s on of thes e pr efi xes does notgi ve r i s e t o the conc l us i on thatthe mar ks a re s im ila r o r l ik e ly to c o n f u s e . See Tektr oni

x, I nc. v. D aktr oni cs , I

nc. , 187 U . S. P. Q . 588 (T .T .A .B . 1 9 7 5 ), a

ff’d , 534 F. 2d 915, 189 U . S. P. Q . ( C . C . P. A . 1976) ( fi ndi ng no l i keli ho od of co nfu si on betw een “T E K T R O N IX ” and “D A K T R O N IC S ” i n p artbecau se th e su f f ix “ T R O N IX ” /“T R O N IC S ” m e re lyin d ica tes th a t th e g o o d s a re e lec tro n ic in n a tu re ); A m . C

yanam i d C or

p. v. C onnaughtLabs. , I nc. , 800 F. 2d 306 ( 2d C i r . 1986)A l though T e k tro n ix , C utter La bs. , and P o la ro id i nv olved L anh am A ct§ 2 (d) cl ai m s, 6 “the s t andar d appl i ed i s the s ame ‘ l i kel i hood of conf us i on’ rul e appl i cabl e t o the t es tof tr a d e m a rk in f

ri n g e m e n t.” 3 J . M c C a rt h y , Trade m arks and U nf ai rC om pet i t i on , § 23: 78. 13 (find ing n o li k eli h o o d o f c o n fu sion b etw ee n “H ibV A X ” a n d “H ibIM M U N E ” in p art b e c a u se th e ter m “ H ib ” sig n if ied th a t th e re sp e c tiv e v a c c in e s a t issu e w e re d e sig n e d to tre a t h aem op hil us i nfl uenza type b ); C ut t erLabs. , I nc. v. A i rP r ods . & Chem s . , I nc. , 189 U . S. P. Q . 108 ( T . T . A . B . 1975) ( fi ndi ng no l i kel i hood of conf us i on betw een “S T E R IF L E X ” a n d “R E S IF L E X ” in p art be ca u se th e su ff ix “F L E X ” is a d esc ri p ti v e term in d ica tin g th e f

lex ib le n a tu re o f

th e p ro d u c t); P olar oi d C or p. v. O cul ens , Ltd. , 196 U . S. P. Q . 836 ( T . T . A . B . 1977) ( fi ndi ng no l i kel i hood of conf us i on betw een “PO L A R O I D ” and “ FI L T E R O I D ” i n partbeca us e the t erm “O I D ” i s a comm on one ind icati n g “re sem b lanc e” o r “li k en ess” ). See a l so 3 J . M c C a rt h y , Trade m arks and 6 U nf ai rC om pet i t i on , § 2 3 :48 (sett ing fo rth n u m ero u s o ther sim il ar c ase s). T h e re f o re , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in c o n c lu d in g th a t E v e re tt w a s u n lik e lyto su cc ee d o n the m erit s an d d id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n in d en y ing E v ere tt ’s m o ti o n fo r a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on. V . C oncl usi on F o r th e se re a so n s, w e w ill A F F IR M th e ru lin g o f th e D istric t C o u rt.

________________