Opinion ID: 3066602
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Similarity of the Parties’ Marks

Text: The second factor for confusion—the similarity of marks—requires the factfinder to compare the plaintiff’s marks with the defendant’s marks and measure their similarity. “[T]he greater the similarity . . . , the greater the likelihood of confusion.” Exxon Corp. v. Tex. Motor Exch. of Hous., Inc., 628 F.2d 500, 505 (5th Cir. 1980). Similarity must be determined “by considering the overall impression created by the mark as a whole rather than simply comparing individual features of the marks.” Id. Relevant points of comparison include “the appearance, sound and meaning of the marks, as well as the manner in which the marks are used.” John H. Harland, 711 F.2d at 975. Neither party challenges the finding of the district court that the similarity of the word marks favors the Sovereign Order, but the Sovereign Order challenges the finding that the design marks are dissimilar. It argues that the parties’ design 30 Case: 14-14251 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 31 of 49 marks are strikingly similar. It highlights the common design elements—a shield and a Maltese cross—that are featured in both marks and the overall impression that the marks convey. We conclude that the truth is somewhere in the middle: the district court did not clearly err by finding this factor favors the Florida Priory, but it clearly erred to the extent it attributed significant weight to this factor. See Frehling Enters., 192 F.3d at 1338. The parties’ design marks are similar: Both marks feature a shield and a Maltese cross. Both marks invoke impressions of Malta, Christianity, and the military, and they are used in the same way—as the symbol for a religious charitable organization. See AmBrit, Inc. v. Kraft, Inc., 812 F.2d 1531, 1541 (11th Cir. 1986) (finding confusing similarity in trade dress when, “[a]lthough a close examination of the two wrappers reveals significant differences,” “each is the same size, each has a textured silver foil background, each is printed primarily with blue and white inks, each includes the product name in large block letters and the company name in smaller script, and each features a 31 Case: 14-14251 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 32 of 49 polar bear”); Exxon Corp., 628 F.2d at 505 (finding confusing similarity between two marks that were used similarly and were both “printed in red with all block letters on a white background” with blue underneath); John H. Harland, 711 F.2d at 976 (“Although the similarities in appearance, sound and meaning between the marks . . . are far from overwhelming, these similarities are accentuated by the manner in which the marks are used.”). The overall designs of the marks are different, however, and they are visually distinguishable. Because there are “both similarities and differences,” we “cannot say flatly that either the marks are or are not visually similar.” 4 McCarthy § 23:25. Instead, we conclude that this factor does not meaningfully tip the scales one way or the other. See John H. Harland, 711 F.2d at 976; see also In re Coors Brewing Co., 343 F.3d 1340, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Although we uphold the . . . finding that the two marks are generally similar, . . . we note that similarity is not a binary factor but is a matter of degree. Because there are significant differences in the design of the two marks, the finding of similarity is a less important factor . . . .”).