Opinion ID: 150366
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Purchasers' Care and Sophistication ( Lapp Factor Three)

Text: When consumers exercise heightened care in evaluating the relevant products before making purchasing decisions, courts have found there is not a strong likelihood of confusion. Where the relevant products are expensive, or the buyer class consists of sophisticated or professional purchasers, courts have generally not found Lanham Act violations. Checkpoint Sys., 269 F.3d at 284. However, where the group of buyers is a combination of professionals and ordinary consumers, the class as a whole is not held to the higher standard of care. Id. at 285. Under the heading [p]rice and customer sophistication, the District Court found that the product is expensive and the customers are sophisticated purchasers who purchase the product after careful thought and analysis.... Usually, the customers are repeat customers. These customers exercise a high level of care, and, therefore, eliminates [sic] the likelihood of confusion. The District Court also noted that these products are not sold over the counter and that both parties' customers regularly ask technical questions about the scientific and safety merits of the product prior to purchase. The court thus concluded that this factor favors Creative Compounds. The court further weighed this factor heavily in its ultimate conclusion that there is no likelihood of confusion. The District Court's reasoning inappropriately treats the products' direct buyershere, the manufacturers of nutraceuticalsas the only relevant consumers. In Kos, we criticized the parties and the district court for treating medical professionals as the only relevant consumers of pharmaceuticals, noting that drugs are increasingly marketed directly to potential patients through, for example, `ask-your-doctor-about-Brand-X' style advertising. See Kos, 369 F.3d at 715-16. Here, Sabinsa presented evidencecompletely disregarded by the District Courtthat it directly markets ForsLean through just this type of advertising, distributing pamphlets to retail outlets for distribution to the public. The appropriate standard of care to be exercised, therefore, should have been equal to that of the least sophisticated consumer in the classthe general consumer reading a ForsLean pamphlet who then chooses a nutraceutical containing forskohlin. See Checkpoint Sys., 269 F.3d at 285 (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Prods., Inc., 930 F.2d 277, 293 (3d Cir.1991)); cf. Morgenstern Chem. Co. v. G.D. Searle & Co., 253 F.2d 390, 392 (3d Cir.1958) (recognizing that physicians and pharmacists ... are carefully trained to detect differences in the characteristics of pharmaceutical products, but holding that this does not open the door to the adoption by manufacturers of medicines of trademarks or names which would be confusingly similar to anyone not exercising such great care). The District Court thus committed legal error when it concluded that this factor weighs heavily in favor of Creative Compounds. Once again, the facts are undisputed. Though the price of forskohlin to suppliers is relatively high, the nutraceuticals that contain forskohlin are clearly affordable to most interested consumers. Further, the sales process is as quick as a trip to the check-out counter. In addition, nutraceuticals, unlike pharmaceuticals, require no consultation with a professional and may often be impulse purchases. Moreover, there was no showing that consumers of nutraceuticals are highly sophisticated. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of Sabinsa.