Opinion ID: 779335
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trek's Motion

Text: 29 With respect to Trek's motion, the district court determined that no reasonable juror could find that likelihood of confusion exists. Although this conclusion exaggerates the weakness of the evidence in Trek's favor, it is not so far off the mark as to require summary judgment for Trek. We turn to two other relevant Sleekcraft factors — the similarity of the marks and the relatedness of the goods — to determine whether the district court properly denied Trek's motion. Cf. Brookfield Communications, 174 F.3d at 1054 (factors ... such as similarity of the marks and whether the two companies are direct competitors... will always be important). 30 Both TREK and OrbiTrek include the syllable Trek, and the syllable is separately capitalized in OrbiTrek. A reasonable jury might nonetheless conclude that the marks are not similar. This is so even if the jury takes seriously the admonition that [s]imilarities weigh more heavily than differences. Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 352. 31 OrbiTrek contains the two syllable prefix Orbi, while TREK does not. So OrbiTrek has three times as many syllables as TREK and twice as many letters. In Entrepreneur Media we held that a reasonable fact finder could find Entrepreneur dissimilar from both Entrepreneur Illustrated and EntrepreneurPR. In particular, we reasoned that Entrepreneur Illustrated is almost twice as long — to both the eye and ear — as Entrepreneur, and EntrepreneurPR contains two more syllables than Entrepreneur. 279 F.3d at 1145-46. Moreover, the TREK trademark appears with all four letters capitalized, distinguishing it visibly from OrbiTrek. 32 In addition, the more closely related the goods are, the more likely consumers will be confused by similar marks. Entrepreneur Media at 1147. To determine whether the goods are related, we ask whether the consuming public is likely somehow to associate the OrbiTrek with Trek. Brookfield Communications, 174 F.3d at 1056. 33 Trek primarily sells bicycles and bicycle accessories. Although a mobile bicycle and the OrbiTrek machine both provide exercise, a jury could find this relationship insufficient to support a likelihood of confusion between these products. 34 Trek did sell six models of stationary exercise bikes from 1993 to 1996. Trek sold its fitness equipment line to Vision Fitness in 1996; that company continued to market stationary bikes bearing the TREK mark through at least 1997. The parties dispute whether any stationary bikes bearing the Trek logo were sold after Thane introduced the OrbiTrek in 1998. Trek did, however, submit evidence showing that it planned to sell a device beginning in 2000 that would allow a user to convert her bicycle into a stationary bicycle. 35 Taken all together, this evidence concerning the relatedness of Trek and Thane's products is sufficiently balanced that a reasonable juror could conclude either that Trek and Thane's products are related or that they are not. A jury, making all reasonable inferences in Thane's favor, could conclude that Trek's foray into the stationary bike market was a short-lived failure and thus unimportant to a likelihood of confusion determination, particularly if the jury concluded that Trek's venture ended entirely before the OrbiTrek was introduced. Also, even if a jury considered Trek an active or future producer of stationary bikes, it could reasonably conclude that stationary bikes and elliptical gliders are different enough from each other that consumers would not confuse the OrbiTrek with Trek's stationary exercise bikes. As the district court observed, [t]he OrbiTrek does not have bicycle style pedals or a seat for someone to sit on as they would if they were riding a bicycle, stationary or otherwise. Based on this observation, a reasonable jury could conclude, as the district court did, that the products are not related. 36 Finally, although we conclude above that a reasonable juror could find actual confusion based on Trek's survey data, that data is not so compelling that a reasonable jury could not credit Thane's criticisms of the survey evidence and give the evidence of actual confusion little or no credence. 37 In sum, a reasonable jury could conclude that there is no credible evidence of direct confusion, that TREK and OrbiTrek are not similar, and that the products identified by the marks are not related. If it reached these conclusions, a jury could reasonably determine that there was no likelihood of confusion between the TREK and OrbiTrek marks. Therefore, Trek's motion for summary judgment must fail as did Thane's. We remand to the district court for trial on Trek's trademark infringement claim.