Opinion ID: 206225
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Type of Goods and Degree of Care

Text: Low consumer care . . . increases the likelihood of confusion. Playboy, 354 F.3d at 1028. In assessing the likelihood of confusion to the public, the standard used by the courts is the typical buyer exercising ordinary caution. . . . When the buyer has expertise in the field, a higher standard is proper though it will not preclude a finding that confusion is likely. Similarly, when the goods are expensive, the buyer can be expected to exercise greater care in his purchases; again, though, confusion may still be likely. Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 353 (citations omitted). The nature of the goods and the type of consumer is highly relevant to determining the likelihood of confusion in the keyword advertising context. A sophisticated consumer of business software exercising a high degree of care is more likely to understand the mechanics of Internet search engines and the nature of sponsored links, whereas an un-savvy consumer exercising less care is more likely to be confused. The district court determined that this factor weighed in Systems' favor because there is generally a low degree of care exercised by Internet consumers. However, the degree of care analysis cannot begin and end at the marketing channel. We still must consider the nature and cost of the goods, and whether the products being sold are marketed primarily to expert buyers. Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1060. In Brookfield, the websites were visited by both sophisticated entertainment industry professionals and amateur film fans, which supported the conclusion that at least some of the consumers were likely to exercise a low degree of care. Id. at 1056. In Playboy, the relevant consumer was looking for cheap, interchangeable adult-oriented material, which similarly led to our court's finding that the consumers at issue would exercise a low degree of care. 354 F.3d at 1029. In both cases, we looked beyond the medium itself and to the nature of the particular goods and the relevant consumers. We have recently acknowledged that the default degree of consumer care is becoming more heightened as the novelty of the Internet evaporates and online commerce becomes commonplace. In Toyota Motor Sales v. Tabari, 610 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2010), we vacated a preliminary injunction that prohibited a pair of automobile brokers from using Toyota's Lexus mark in their domain names. [5] We determined that it was unlikely that a reasonably prudent consumer would be confused into believing that a domain name that included a product name would necessarily have a formal affiliation with the maker of the product, as [c]onsumers who use the internet for shopping are generally quite sophisticated about such matters. Id. at 1178. The Tabari panel reasoned, [I]n the age of FIOS, cable modems, DSL and T1 lines, reasonable, prudent and experienced internet consumers are accustomed to such exploration by trial and error. They skip from site to site, ready to hit the back button whenever they're not satisfied with a site's contents. They fully expect to find some sites that aren't what they imagine based on a glance at the domain name or search engine summary. Outside the special case of . . . domains that actively claim affiliation with the trademark holder, consumers don't form any firm expectations about the sponsorship of a website until they've seen the landing pageif then. Id. at 1179 (citations omitted). We further explained that we expect consumers searching for expensive products online to be even more sophisticated. Id. at 1176 (Unreasonable, imprudent and inexperienced web-shoppers are not relevant.). Therefore the district court improperly concluded that this factor weighed in Systems' favor based on a conclusion reached by our court more than a decade ago in Brookfield and GoTo.com that Internet users on the whole exercise a low degree of care. While the statement may have been accurate then, we suspect that there are many contexts in which it no longer holds true.