Opinion ID: 4179424
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Balancing of factors

Text: To summarize, four Polaroid factors (strength, similarity, actual confusion, and good faith) favor MMG, two factors (competitive proximity and quality) favor Joules, and two factors (likelihood of bridging the gap and purchaser sophistication) are neutral. As discussed, the competitive proximity factor does not strongly favor Joules due to differences in product nature, but the actual confusion factor clearly favors MMG. Upon our de novo review of the balancing of factors, we agree with the district court that the overall balance favors MMG and that Joules has therefore not demonstrated a likelihood of consumer confusion. We have considered Joulesʹs remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. FOR THE COURT: Catherine OʹHagan Wolfe, Clerk ‐ 11 ‐