Opinion ID: 779335
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Thane's Motion

Text: 21 The grant of summary judgment for Thane falters upon consideration of a single Sleekcraft factor, evidence of actual confusion. 22 Trek provided evidence that consumers were actually confused by Thane's use of OrbiTrek. Based on that evidence, a reasonable jury could find a likelihood of confusion. 23 Evidence of actual confusion constitutes `persuasive proof that future confusion is likely.' Clicks Billiards, 251 F.3d at 1265 (quoting Fuddruckers, Inc. v. Doc's B.R. Others, Inc., 826 F.2d 837, 845 (9th Cir.1987)). This rule makes good sense. If enough people have been actually confused, then a likelihood that people are confused is established. 24 This is not to say that evidence of actual confusion will always compel a jury to find likelihood of confusion. In some cases, a jury may properly find actual confusion evidence de minimis and thus unpersuasive as to the ultimate issue.... Entrepreneur Media, 279 F.3d at 1150. But if a party produces evidence from which a reasonable jury could surmise that an  appreciable number of people are confused about the source of the product, then it is entitled to a trial on the likelihood of confusion — although it will not necessarily prevail at that trial. Id. at 1151 (emphasis in original). 25 Trek did not present direct evidence of actual confusion, such as the testimony of actual customers. It did, however, present extensive survey evidence of actual confusion. Survey evidence may establish actual confusion. Clicks Billiards, 251 F.3d at 1265; Wendt v. Host Int'l, Inc., 125 F.3d 806, 813 (9th Cir.1997); Levi Strauss & Co. v. Blue Bell, Inc., 778 F.2d 1352, 1360 (9th Cir.1985) (en banc). 26 After Trek's dispute with Thane began, Trek hired David A. Stewart, a professor at the Gordon Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California, to oversee a survey into the likelihood of confusion between the two companies' products. The survey consisted of interviews with 400 people over the age of 18 who had purchased either a bicycle or exercise equipment in the last three years or planned to do so in the next year. The respondents were interviewed in shopping malls in eight metropolitan areas across the United States. 27 Three hundred of the respondents were shown pictures of advertisements for Trek products and OrbiTrek products and asked questions about the pictures. 6 After analyzing the relevant data, Stewart concluded that 27.7 % of the respondents in the survey were confused with respect to the source or association of the OrbiTrek products based on the similarity of its name and/or logo to the Trek name or logo. 28 Thane has criticized the survey's methodology. But drawing all justifiable inferences from the survey in Trek's favor as we must on summary judgment, we must conclude that the survey provides evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that more than one quarter of those who encounter both Trek and OrbiTrek ads will be confused about the origin of the OrbiTrek exercise machine. Because actual confusion is persuasive proof of the likelihood of confusion, a reasonable jury could conclude that a likelihood of confusion exists. We therefore reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment to Thane.