See Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Plaintiffs sell mostly products oriented towards children such as toys and childrens' clothes. The sale of firearms could hardly be further from plaintiffs' market. The consumers exposed to defendants' marketing are sophisticated enough to distinguish between plaintiffs' and defendants' products. Defendant's sales and marketing efforts outside Massachusetts are directed towards firearms dealers.
Consumers looking at defendants' website are internet users and, presumably, sophisticated.
The remaining Polaroid factors do not weigh heavily in either direction. Perfect Fit Indus. Here, whatever intentional copying existed was not done with the intent to deceive the public or to divert business from plaintiffs. In sum, the Court finds an absence of any material issue of fact with regard to the likelihood of purchasers being confused as to the source of defendants' products. As a matter of law, plaintiff has failed to present a prima facie case under either theory.