Opinion ID: 771716
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Marketing and Advertising Channels

Text: 114 The District Court concluded that the channels of sale and advertising of the products overlap. It noted that both the price range for the suits and their means of sale are similar. It observed that the Miraclesuit has been advertised in in-store promotions, magazines, department store bill enclosures, and press kits to buyers, editors, and publishers, and that The Miracle Bra suits have been marketed in point-of-sale promotions in Victoria's Secret stores, and through press kits and print and television advertising. The court held that the channels of trade were similar, in that Miraclesuit is sold to department stores and catalogues that compete with Victoria's Secret Stores and Victoria's Secret Catalogue. Although the court noted that The Miracle Bra suits are never sold outside of the Victoria's Secret store or catalogue, and that [s]uch fine distinctions between the channels in which the products are sold may weigh in favor of diminishing a likelihood of confusion, A&H IV, 57 F. Supp. 2d at 171, it concluded that the conditions of purchase were similar, and weighed this factor in favor of A&H. 115 Although there are significant differences in trade channels--notably, that Victoria's Secret sells its product only in its own stores and catalogues--perfect parallelism will rarely be found. Furthermore, the Miraclesuit has twice been sold in Victoria's Secret catalogues. Thus, the District Court did not clearly err in its factual conclusion that channels of marketing and advertising weigh in favor of A&H.