Opinion ID: 150366
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Similarity of Marks ( Lapp Factor One)

Text: The single most important factor in determining likelihood of confusion is mark similarity. A & H Sportswear, 237 F.3d at 216. Marks are confusingly similar if ordinary consumers would likely conclude that [the two products] share a common source, affiliation, connection or sponsorship. Fisons Horticulture, Inc. v. Vigoro Indus., Inc., 30 F.3d 466, 477 (3d Cir.1994). The proper test is not a side-by-side comparison but, rather, whether the labels create the same overall impression when viewed separately. Kos, 369 F.3d at 713. Overall impression is created by the sight, sound, and meaning of the mark. See A & H Sportswear, 237 F.3d at 217. `The degree of similarity... needed to prove likely confusion will vary with the difference in the goods.... Where the goods ... are directly competitive, the degree of similarity required to prove a likelihood of confusion is less than in the case of dissimilar products.' Kos, 369 F.3d at 713 (quoting 3 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION § 23:20.1 (4th ed.2003)). The District Court found that this factor favors Creative Compounds, asserting that, beyond the shared letters fors, ForsLean and Forsthin have no other similarity. The court's reasoning, however, contains clear errors. First, for its visual analysis, the District Court focused on minute differences in the products' logos while ignoring evidence that both marks are often used in plain text without the surrounding graphics. [2] The District Court devoted only one sentence to a visual comparison of the words ForsLean and Forsthin apart from their logos and that sentence only contrasted the words thin and lean rather than the overall impression. However, looked at as a whole, ForsLean and Forsthin share all but three letters, have the same dominant syllable and end letter, and have the same number of syllables. Under these circumstances, the District Court clearly erred in finding that the words are not visually similar. See Kos, 369 F.3d at 713 (because ADVICOR and ALTOCOR are [b]oth ... seven-letter, three-syllable words that begin and end with the same letters and the same sounds ... the district court clearly erred in failing to recognize that this factor weighs in [the senior user's] favor). Likewise, in analyzing the connotative differences between ForsLean and Forsthin, the District Court ignored evidence and failed to make sufficient subordinate findings. The court stated that it accepts Defendant's arguments that a different commercial impression is made by the word `lean' versus `thin' and that [t]hin would convey to the consumer ... weight loss, whereas lean would convey a lean body type. As an initial matter, again the District Court erred by comparing lean and thin rather than ForsLean and Forsthin. See Fisons Horticulture, 30 F.3d at 477-78. More centrally, the District Court's finding is contrary to undisputed evidence at trial, none of which was cited in its opinion: Creative Compounds uses thin and lean interchangeably in its other weight loss products, Creative Compounds's sales manager and one of its customers conceded at trial that lean invokes weight loss and that Sabinsa promotes ForsLean to end users as a weight management product. Indeed, during the trial, the District Court took judicial notice that there are products out there, when they use the word `lean,' that are weight loss products. Its ultimate finding that the words thin and lean would convey different mental impressions to consumers is impossible to reconcile with this earlier recognition that the terms are interchangeable to consumers. In sum, the District Court clearly erred in failing to find that this factor favors Sabinsa.