Opinion ID: 162544
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Similarity of Products and Manner of Marketing

Text: 21 The greater the similarity between the products ..., the greater the likelihood of confusion. Universal Money Ctrs., 22 F.3d at 1532. This court has previously analyzed this factor by separately considering (1) the similarity of products and (2) the similarity in the manner of marketing the products. See id. at 1532-33. Here, Beautyco concedes the first factor, that both Generic Value Products and GENERIX are cheaper versions of salon brand hair care products. Confusing similarity is most likely when the products themselves are very similar. Beer Nuts I, 711 F.2d at 941. 22 In analyzing the similarity in the manner of marketing, this court has previously considered whether the parties were competitors in consumer markets. See Heartsprings, Inc. v. Heartspring, Inc., 143 F.3d 550, 556-57 (10th Cir.1998); First Sav. Bank, 101 F.3d at 656. Beautyco concedes that it and Sally Beauty sell their products at their respective retail stores and that its primary competitor in the beauty salon products business is Sally Beauty. Similar hair care product lines were thus reaching consumers through similar commercial channels to the same retail market, the beauty supply trade. Cf. Heartsprings, 143 F.3d at 557 (concluding that evidence indicating that parties operate[d] in distinctly different markets, [sold] distinctly different products, and contact[ed], for the most part, very different people in their marketing efforts reduced the likelihood of confusion). A consumer who bought either party's products, which are similar in nature and packaging, thus did so in competing retail outlets. Beautyco does not allege that there are differences in the parties' advertising strategies, which could reduce the likelihood of confusion. See Universal Money Ctrs., 22 F.3d at 1532. 23 Although the district court recognized these significant similarit[ies] in the products and marketing, it explained that the products do not compete in the same retail outlets and thus there is little risk of confusion. This court has recognized that [t]he possibility of confusion is greatest when products reach the public by the same retail outlets. Beer Nuts I, 711 F.2d at 941. None of our cases, however, require that the allegedly infringing product be available on the same shelves as the plaintiff's product. Accord Paco Rabanne Parfums, S.A. v. Norco Enters., Inc., 680 F.2d 891, 893 (2d Cir.1982) (explaining that, in the context of preliminary injunctions, it is well established that products need not be sold side by side for a plaintiff to show that there is a likelihood of confusion). As already discussed, the parties had similar and competing products marketed to consumers through similar commercial channels. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of Marianna.