Opinion ID: 4179424
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Competitive proximity

Text: Competitive proximity ʺʹconcerns whether and to what extent the two products compete with each otherʹ and ʹthe nature of the products themselves and the structure of the relevant market.ʹʺ Morningside Grp. Ltd. v. Morningside Capital Grp., L.L.C., 182 F.3d 133, 140 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting Cadbury Beverages, Inc. v. Cott Corp., 73 F.3d 474, 480 (2d Cir. 1996)). ʺAmong the considerations germane to the structure of the market are the class of customers to whom the goods are sold, the manner in which the products are advertised, and the channels through which the goods are sold.ʺ Cadbury, 73 F.3d at 480. The district court found that the competitive proximity factor weighed ʺclearly in favor of MMG.ʺ S. App. 17. We do not agree. Both sets of products are sold ‐ 6 ‐ in brick‐and‐mortar department stores (albeit not the same ones); sold online through the partiesʹ respective websites; and, for a small subset of both products, sold online through the same or similar third‐party websites. Both product lines target and are sold to young women who seek work‐ and weekend‐appropriate clothing and who are likely to visit both sets of sales locations. These considerations show competitive proximity between the products, even if the vast majority of products are not sold side‐by‐side in the same stores or on the same websites. See Patsyʹs Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc., 317 F.3d 209, 218 (2d Cir. 2003) (finding competitive proximity, even though products were sold in separate stores, because products appealed to same consumers, stores were geographically close, and consumers were reasonably likely to visit both stores). The different nature of the products, however, tempers the finding of competitive proximity. Although both product lines feature clothing of comparable quality and price, the court found that ʺa significant percentageʺ of Joules sales in the United States are for rain boots and rainwear, the majority of large national retailers carrying Joules products carry only their rain boots and rainwear, and there are no rain boots or rainwear in the Maison Jules line. S. App. 17. This evidence indicated that a significant portion of the Joules products sold are different in nature from the Maison Jules products sold, a conclusion that weakens the finding of competitive proximity. On balance, we conclude the competitive proximity factor weighs slightly in Joulesʹs favor. Nonetheless, assuming the district court clearly erred in finding that ‐ 7 ‐ the factor clearly favored MMG, as discussed below, we agree with its overall conclusion as to the likelihood of confusion.