Opinion ID: 622599
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application of a Heightened Standard for

Text: Likelihood of Confusion Peoples Federal contends that the district court erred by requiring proof of actual confusion, actual loss of business, and bad intent, thereby applying an improperly high standard for likelihood of success on the merits. Peoples Federal points to the district court's statement at the end of its likelihood of success analysis to support its position. The district court indicated that at least at this stage of the proceedings, the plaintiff ha[d] not adequately demonstrated it [would be] likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark claim. Peoples Fed. Sav. Bank, 750 F. Supp. 2d at 227. In particular, the district court stated it -22- would entertain a renewed motion for injunctive relief if evidence was elicited of (1) deliberate encroachment into specific neighborhoods where Peoples Federal operates and of (2) People's United's actions having caused actual confusion among Peoples Federal's clientele. Id. Peoples Federal argues this language confirms that the district court required more than a mere likelihood of confusion, and that it found against the grant of a preliminary injunction because Peoples Federal failed to present proof of these two factors. We are not persuaded. Peoples Federal reads more into the district court's words than is warranted. The district court's findings as to likelihood of confusion were supported by the record before it, which included scant evidence of actual confusion, a proper consideration of People's United's intent in adopting the mark, and a thorough analysis of six other factors. These additional expressions were only an attempt to clarify to the parties the court's willingness to consider future motions for injunctive relief if it were given a more developed record. We also reject Peoples Federal's related contention that the district court applied an improperly high standard as to likelihood of confusion because it indicated that in a trademark infringement case the plaintiff carries a considerable burden to show not just a 'possibility of confusion' but rather a 'substantial likelihood of confusion.' Id. at 224 (emphasis -23- added) (quoting Bear Republic Brewing Co. v. Cent. City Brewing Co., 716 F. Supp. 2d 134, 140 (D. Mass. 2010)). The district court's consideration of the actual confusion factor did not amount to a requirement to prove an iron-clad, sure-bet likelihood of confusion, as characterized by Peoples Federal. The district court accurately framed the plaintiff's burden, see, e.g., Star Fin. Servs., Inc., 89 F.3d at 10 (We require evidence of a substantial likelihood of confusion -- not a mere possibility . . .) (internal quotation marks omitted), and -- after an appraisal of Peoples Federal's slim proffer of evidence -- determined, in its discretion, that the proffered evidence was insufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion.