Opinion ID: 771716
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Summary of the Test for Reverse Confusion

Text: 157 In sum, in the typical case in which there is a claim of reverse confusion, a court should examine the following factors as aids in its determination whether or not there is a likelihood of such confusion: 158
159 (2) the strength of the two marks, weighing both a commercially strong junior user's mark and a conceptually strong senior user's mark in the senior user's favor; 160 (3) the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers when making a purchase; 161 (4) the length of time the defendant has used the mark without evidence of actual confusion arising; 162 (5) the intent of the defendant in adopting the mark; 163 (6) the evidence of actual confusion; 164 (7) whether the goods, competing or not competing, are marketed through the same channels of trade and advertised through the same media; 165 (8) the extent to which the targets of the parties' sales efforts are the same; 166 (9) the relationship of the goods in the minds of consumers, whether because of the near-identity of the products, the similarity of function, or other factors; 167 (10) other facts suggesting that the consuming public might expect the larger, more powerful company to manufacture both products, or expect the larger company to manufacture a product in the plaintiff's market, or expect that the larger company is likely to expand into the plaintiff's market. 168 As with the test for direct confusion, no one factor is dispositive, and in individual cases, particular factors may not be probative on the issue of likelihood of confusion. The weight given to each factor in the overall picture, as well as its weighing for plaintiff or defendant, must be done on an individual fact-specific basis. Fisons, 30 F.3d at 476 n.11.