Opinion ID: 3160389
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relatedness of the goods or services

Text: We next look to whether Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ goods or services are related. We have developed three analytic categories for Lanham Act cases such as this one: “[f]irst, if the parties compete directly, confusion is likely if the marks are sufficiently similar; second, if the goods and services are somewhat related, but not competitive, then the likelihood of confusion will turn on other factors; finally, if the products are unrelated, confusion is highly unlikely. Kellogg Co. v. Toucan Golf, Inc., 337 F.3d 616, 624 (6th Cir. 2003). The object of this inquiry is to “focus[] on whether goods or services with comparable marks that are similarly marketed and appeal to common customers are likely to lead consumers to believe that they come from the same source, or are somehow connected with or sponsored by a common company.” AutoZone, Inc. v. Tandy Corp., 373 F.3d 786, 797 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Therma-Scan, Inc. v. Thermoscan, Inc., 295 F.3d 623, 633 (6th Cir. 2002)). While we note that this factor is best suited to cases involving two distinct but similar marks, the facts of this case fit most neatly into the first of these three categories. Both Sheakley and and Tri-Serve were in the PEO business, and Strunk-Zwick brought Tri-Serve’s clients to a competitor business by using the Tri-Serve name in her e-mails to tell clients that their business was moving to Sheakley. As discussed further below, the purpose of this e-mail was to lead the Tri-Serve customers to believe that TriServe was indeed partnering with Sheakley. Thus, this factor weighs strongly in favor of potential consumer confusion.