Opinion ID: 560376
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Intent of Defendant in Selecting Mark

Text: 60 The District Court also declined to make a finding on the issue of Specialists' intent in selecting its marks. If a party chooses a mark with the intent of causing confusion, that fact alone may be sufficient to justify an inference of confusing similarity. Wynn Oil, 839 F.2d at 1189.H. Likelihood of Expansion of Product Lines 61 The District Court's finding on this factor consists of the following: Finally, plaintiff has submitted that a likelihood of expansion by defendant does exist. According to plaintiff, defendant plans to establish franchises in Florida, Georgia and 22 other states, but at present, defendant has no franchises. Although plans for geographic expansion by one or both parties may be relevant, the inquiry contemplated under this factor is not so limited. The more important question in this case, which involves services which are not competitive or closely related, concerns expansion in the types of products or services offered by the parties. Inasmuch as a trademark owner is afforded greater protection against services that directly compete or are in the same channels of trade, a strong possibility that either party will expand his business to compete with the other or be marketed to the same consumers will weigh in favor of finding that the present use is infringing. See Restatement of Torts Sec. 731(b) & comment c (1938). The District Court did not address this significant question.