Mr. Feinberg has changed the name voluntarily, and no doubt has no interest in continually changing the name of his proprietorship, and, potentially, inciting further litigation by plaintiffs which defendant, a small retail store, can ill afford. The record on this motion reflects the absence of any likelihood of confusion between defendants' and plaintiffs' products. Further, the Court finds any allegation of such confusion by consumers to be unlikely. Application of the Polaroid factors confirms this conclusion. 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.