Opinion ID: 799526
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Balancing the Frisch Factors

Text: We review de novo the legal question of whether [the district court's Frisch factual findings] constitute a likelihood of confusion. Tumblebus Inc., 399 F.3d at 764 (quoting Champions Golf Club, Inc. v. The Champions Golf Club, Inc., 78 F.3d 1111, 1116 (6th Cir.1996)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because we find above that the district court did not reversibly err in its factual findings on the three disputed factorsstrength, similarity, and actual confusionand because the parties do not dispute the district court's factual findings under the remaining five factors, we adopt all of the district court's factual findings and balance them de novo. 1. Strength. The district court found the evidence of the strength of the mark heavily favored Maker's Mark. We have held that the strength of the mark supplies the weight it should be accorded in balancing. In general, [t]he stronger the mark, all else equal, the greater the likelihood of confusion. AutoZone, 373 F.3d at 794 (alteration in original) (quoting Homeowners Grp., Inc., 931 F.2d at 1107). Because the district court found the mark at issue here to be extremely strong, the strength factor is weighed very heavily. 2. Relatedness of the goods. The district court found the goods were somewhat related because they were part of the same broad category of high-end distilled spirits, but not fully related because the Cuervo product was priced at $100 per bottle, while Maker's Mark sold for $24 per bottle. Where the goods are somewhat related but not competitive, the likelihood of confusion will turn on other factors. Daddy's, 109 F.3d at 282. Here, the district court found that the products are somewhat related. We accord this factor little weight because the products are competitive only within a very broad category and are only somewhat related; it is thus more appropriate to concentrate the weight of our balancing analysis on other factors. 3. Similarity. The district court found the similarity factor narrowly favors Maker's [Mark]. The similarity of the senior and junior marks is `a factor of considerable weight.' AutoZone, 373 F.3d at 795 (quoting Daddy's, 109 F.3d at 283). 4. Actual confusion. As discussed above, a lack of such evidence is rarely significant, and the factor of actual confusion is weighted heavily only where there is evidence of past confusion, or perhaps, when the particular circumstances indicate such evidence should have been available. Daddy's, 109 F.3d at 284 (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court found that this factor was neutral. As we noted, the Reserva product was sold for a short time and in limited quantities; under these circumstances, we give the lack of evidence of actual confusion little weight. 5. Marketing channels used by the parties. The court found the channels similar in some ways and dissimilar in others. Perhaps this factor marginally favors Maker's Mark. The weight of this factor will not add much to a finding of infringement because of the equivocal nature of the district court's factual findings. We accord this factor very little weight. 6. Likely degree of purchaser care. The district court found this factor clearly favors Cuervo because of the degree of care potential tequila customers would exercise in purchasing a $100 bottle of Reserva; knowledgeable bourbon customers would also exercise similar care and, further, know that Maker's Mark sells only one kind of liquor. This factor, though strongly in favor of Cuervo, is not dispositive. [C]onfusingly similar marks may lead a purchaser who is extremely careful and knowledgeable . . . to assume nonetheless that the seller is affiliated with or identical to the other party. Id. at 286. For these reasons, we give this factor substantial weight. 7. Intent. The district court found Cuervo did not intend to infringe, but we give no weight to this finding because [i]ntent is an issue whose resolution may benefit only the cause of the senior user, not of an alleged infringer. Leelanau, 502 F.3d at 520 (internal quotation marks omitted). 8. Likelihood of expansion of product lines. The district court found this factor was neutral where neither party put forth evidence of significant expansion plans. Because a strong possibility that either party will expand his business to compete with the other . . . will weigh in favor of finding that the present use is infringing, Daddy's, 109 F.3d at 287 (internal quotation marks omitted), a finding of little evidence of expansion plans is accorded little to no weight, but does not weigh against Maker's Mark, who, by this test, would benefit by any significant evidentiary showing under this factor, no matter which of the parties intended to expand. For these reasons, we give this factor no weight. The balance of the factors compels a finding of infringement. Excluding the neutral factors, the majority of the factorsstrength, relatedness of the goods, similarity, and marketing channelsfavor Maker's Mark. The district court found that Maker's Mark's trademark is extremely strong, and we have adopted that finding. Further, we have said that the most important Frisch factors are similarity and strength of the mark, Gray v. Meijer, Inc., 295 F.3d 641, 646 (6th Cir. 2002); both of these factors favor Maker's Mark. The likely degree of purchaser care factor clearly favors Cuervo. Though this factor is given substantial weight, this factor alone cannot override the extreme strength of the mark that, when coupled with similarity (which itself is given considerable weight), and combined with the two other factors weighing in favor of Maker's Mark, together favor a finding of infringement. Buttressing this determination is that, in its briefing, Cuervo complains of errors in the district court's factual determinations, but does not argue that, even given the factual findings made by the district court, a de novo balancing under Frisch should come out in Cuervo's favor. While Cuervo disputes the factual findings themselves and the related outcome of the balancing, it does not argue that the weight given the factors should have been different. We conclude that there is a likelihood of confusion between the products and that Cuervo has infringed.