Opinion ID: 531209
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: the strength of the plaintiff's mark.

Text: 49 Boston Athletic Ass'n v. Sullivan, 867 F.2d 22, 29-34 (1st Cir.1989); Volkswagenwerk AG v. Wheeler, 814 F.2d 812, 817 (1st Cir.1987). No one factor is necessarily determinative, but each must be considered. Volkswagenwerk, 814 F.2d at 817. 50 The district court analyzed these factors and determined that Keds had a likelihood of success on its infringement action. We review a district court's evaluation of evidence and finding of a likelihood of confusion based on a clearly erroneous standard. Keebler Co. v. Rovira Biscuit Corp., 624 F.2d 366, 377 (1st Cir.1980). We agree with the district court's findings and only briefly comment on them. 51 The district court found that there is no doubt that Renee's mark is nearly identical to Keds' blue label in size, shape and location and color. We agree that the labels are virtually identical except for the words impressed on the label. This is due in no small part to the fact that both companies use the same factory in China to produce some of their shoes. 52 Renee argues that any confusion about the origin of the goods is resolved because they impress their name on the label. But that fails to address the possibility that individuals might assume that Apples were made by Keds. See, e.g., Levi Strauss & Co. v. Blue Bell, Inc., 632 F.2d 817, 822 (9th Cir.1980); See also Trak, 475 F.Supp. at 1082. The Ninth Circuit, in evaluating a claim by a jeans company that its label, although similar in design to that of the defendant, used different words, held that the use of different words did not avoid likelihood of confusion. Levi, 632 F.2d at 822. In addition, the court noted that with clothing an additional concern is that prospective consumers, viewing the clothes on other people, would be confused as to the origin of the goods. Thus, point of sale confusion was not the only issue. Id. With sneaker labels, where the impressed words can only be read a few feet away from the eyes, such confusion is quite relevant. 53 In determining a trademark's relative strength we have examined the length of time a mark has been used and the relative renown in its field; the strength of the mark in plaintiff's field of business; and the plaintiff's action in promoting the mark. Boston Athletic Ass'n, 867 F.2d at 32. In applying that standard the district court found that Keds had a strong mark. Keds has used the mark continuously for over sixty years. The mark has been registered for about thirty years. Keds has advertised extensively in support of the brand. It is, by all accounts, the leader in the industry. The district court found that Keds has a strong mark, and we agree. 54 Finally, we agree with the district court's finding that Renee's intent was to capitalize on the popularity of the Keds sneakers. 55 Given all of these factors, the district court correctly found that it was likely that consumers would be confused by the Apples labels. Thus, Keds was likely to succeed on the merits of its infringement claim. The district court also correctly ruled that the other factors to be considered before issuing a preliminary injunction also weighed heavily in Keds favor. We agree. 56 Affirmed. Costs awarded to appellee.