Opinion ID: 151187
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Incidents of Actual Confusion

Text: Under the fifth factor, we examine the incidents of actual confusion. Frosty Treats, 426 F.3d at 1008. Although such incidents are proof of the likelihood of confusion, the plaintiff is not required to bring forth incidents of actual confusion to succeed in an infringement case. Squirt-Co., 628 F.2d at 1091. In analyzing this factor, weight is given to the number and extent of instances of actual confusion. Duluth News-Tribune, 84 F.3d at 1098. The district court held Sensient failed to produce any evidence of actual confusion, which it noted was telling since the SensoryEffects name had been in use at the time for approximately one year. As a result, the court concluded the fifth factor weighed in favor of SensoryEffects. Sensient contends it presented evidence detailing some customers' misguided beliefs in phone calls and correspondence where the customers thought SensoryFlavors was, in one way or another, Sensient Flavors. SensoryEffects responds Kenneth Iwanusa, National Sales Manager for Sensient Flavors, testified he knew of no lost sales, no injury to Sensient's reputation, and no incidents in which SensoryEffects benefitted from any confusion between the two companies. As an initial matter, it is questionable whether the statements contained in Sensient's interrogatory responses purportedly establishing the customers' confusion are admissible. See id. (In evaluating the evidence at the summary judgment stage, we consider only those responses that are supported by admissible evidence.). We need not answer this question, however, because assuming the statements are admissible, it is clear even several isolated incidents of actual confusion that occur initially upon the creation of a potentially confusing mark are insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the likelihood of confusion. Id. Instead, we look to whether an appreciable number of ordinary purchasers are likely to be so misled. Id. at 1099. This is not the case here, because the incidents described by Sensient show only negligible confusion after SensoryFlavors was completing its transition with Givaudan Flavors, which is insufficient to meet the burden under the fifth factor. More importantly, the district court correctly noted the alleged incidents of confusion all related to the SensoryFlavors name, not the SensoryEffects name at issue here. Sensient concedes this fact on appeal, but notes there still may be a likelihood of confusion. Sensient's suggestion is without any support in the record, and as a result, no reasonable factfinder could determine the fifth factor favors Sensient. Therefore, the district court did not err in concluding the fifth factor favors SensoryEffects.