Opinion ID: 776502
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Degree of Consumer Care

Text: 86 As to the final Sleekcraft factor, degree of consumer care, we concur in the district court's assessment that this factor weighs against a finding of likelihood of confusion, because small business owners seeking public relations services, advertisers and media entities will exercise a moderate degree of care. EntrepreneurPR's services are expensive, at $10,000 per year; media entities constitute at least a moderately sophisticated class of media consumers; and, [a]s the party opposing the summary judgment motion, [Smith] was entitled to have all inferences of this sort resolved in [his] favor. American Int'l Group, 926 F.2d at 832. 87 3. The Overall Balance of the Sleekcraft Factors 88 Having examined the totality of the facts in the record, we conclude, first, that the way Smith has used the mark Entrepreneur Illustrated on the covers of EntrepreneurPR's printed publication, as it appears in the record, would likely confuse an appreciable number of reasonably prudent consumers, and thus infringed EMI's trademark ENTREPRENEUR. We reach this result because of the strong visual similarity of the marks — due to the small size and the degree of obstruction of the word Illustrated — and because of Smith's knowing adoption of this similar mark and other evidence demonstrating Smith's intent to deceive. See Official Airline Guides, 6 F.3d at 1394. Likewise, EMI's mark is strong enough, and the parties' print publication products are sufficiently related, to support this conclusion. We therefore affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to EMI on this issue. 89 As to all other allegations of trademark infringement, EMI has not demonstrated on this record that Smith has infringed its trademark as a matter of law. A trier of fact could reasonably conclude that none of the eight Sleekcraft factors weighs strongly in favor of a finding of likely confusion as to these allegations. Perhaps more importantly, the weakness of EMI's mark alone weighs heavily against finding infringement as a matter of law. Consumers will likely recognize that the word entrepreneur as used in Smith's marks refers to small, independent business owners, not to EMI, making EMI's showings as to other factors less persuasive on the ultimate question of likelihood of confusion than they otherwise would be. Cf. Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 350 (Although appellant's mark is protectible and may have been strengthened by advertising, it is a weak mark entitled to a restricted range of protection. Thus, only if the marks are quite similar, and the goods closely related, will infringement be found.) (internal citation omitted). We therefore reverse the district court's entry of summary judgment in EMI's favor as to those other uses and remand for trial.