Opinion ID: 196884
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: AASTAR also resurrects its frustrations about

Text: difficulties it experienced in discovery of witnesses and documents needed by it to attack the weight of the testimony about confusion. While we agree with the district court that STAR was less than forthcoming in meeting its discovery obligations, the court adequately addressed the problem by precluding STAR from presenting certain witnesses and by providing an adverse inference instruction about one customer. In the end, AASTAR's discovery arguments are irrelevant to the weight a jury could give the evidence before it (on proper instructions). -11- 11 In assessing a mark's strength, the trier of fact considers evidence of the length of time the mark has been used, its renown in the plaintiff's field of business, and the plaintiff's actions to promote the mark. Equine Technologies, Inc. v. Equitechnology, Inc., 68 F.3d 542, 547 (1st Cir. 1995). The relevant evidence presented here was that STAR's mark was in use in the relevant market area for over two years at the time of trial, and that STAR expended several thousand dollars per month in advertising. Even assuming that this evidence constitutes small support for this factor (and, in fact, STAR admitted at oral argument before this court that the mark was not very strong), the strength of the mark is but one of eight factors to be considered in analyzing the likelihood of confusion issue and sufficient evidence of other factors will sustain a finding of likelihood of confusion. Id. at 546. In conclusion, we cannot say that a reasonable jury could not have reached a verdict for STAR based upon a consideration of all of the factors. A jury could supportably find that the marks and services were very similar, the targeted consumers were the same, and there was actual confusion as to the source of the mortgage services. A jury also could have given little relative weight to the less-supported factors of intent and strength of the mark. -12- 12 While the evidence supporting a substantial likelihood of confusion may not have been overwhelming, it was adequate; the court did not err in denying the motion for judgment as a matter of law, and we will not disturb the jury's verdict.