Opinion ID: 4556092
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Tiffany’s Infringement Claim

Text: Under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff alleging trademark infringement must demonstrate that (1) “it has a valid mark that is entitled to protection” and that (2) the defendant’s “actions are likely to cause confusion with [that] mark.” The Sports Auth., Inc. v. Prime Hospitality Corp., 89 F.3d 955, 960 (2d Cir. 1996). “[A] plaintiff does not have to show necessarily that consumers would believe that the defendant’s goods or services are from the same source as those of the plaintiff.” Id. Rather, a defendant may also be liable for trademark infringement if its “actions are ‘likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association’ of the defendant's goods or services with those of the plaintiff.” Id. (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A)); see also Int’l Info. Sys. Sec. Certification Consortium, Inc. v. Sec. Univ., LLC, 823 F.3d 153, 161–63 (2d Cir. 2016). That said, the mere possibility of confusion is not enough. To prevail in a trademark infringement action, a plaintiff must prove “a probability of confusion . . . affecting numerous ordinary prudent purchasers.” Star Indus., Inc. v. Bacardi & Co. Ltd., 412 F.3d 373, 383 (2d Cir. 2005) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). 13 With the first prong of the infringement inquiry presumptively satisfied, 4 the principal question in this appeal is whether Costco’s use of the word “Tiffany” was likely to cause confusion with Tiffany’s registered mark. We evaluate this question using the test articulated in Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961) (“Polaroid”), which balances the following eight factors: (1) the strength of the trademark; (2) the degree of similarity between the plaintiff’s mark and the defendant’s allegedly imitative use; 5 (3) the proximity of the products and their competitiveness with each other; (4) the likelihood that the plaintiff will “bridge the gap” by developing a product for sale in the defendant’s market; 6 (5) 4 The Lanham Act treats trademark registration as “conclusive evidence of the validity of the registered mark . . . , of the registrant’s ownership of the mark, and of the registrant’s exclusive right to use the registered mark in commerce,” 15 U.S.C. § 1115, and Costco does not contest that Tiffany has registered “Tiffany” as a mark in connection with the sale of jewelry. 5 We have often referred to this factor as examining the similarity between the plaintiff’s and defendant’s marks. See, e.g., Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc., 588 F.3d 97, 115 (2d Cir. 2009). But a defendant that uses a term identical to a plaintiff’s registered mark may be liable for infringement even if it cannot be said to use that term “as a mark,” that is, “as a symbol to attract public attention.” Kelly-Brown v. Winfrey, 717 F.3d 295, 308 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also id. at 306–07 (explaining that customer confusion may exist even where the defendant was not attempting to establish a competing mark, and identifying cases in which we have “allowed certain claims to proceed even where the defendant is not using the plaintiff's mark as a mark”). 6The district court did not consider the likelihood that Tiffany would “bridge the gap” into Costco’s market below, and neither party argues that this factor is relevant on appeal. As the district court correctly explained, Costco’s and Tiffany’s diamond 14 evidence of actual consumer confusion; (6) evidence that the defendant adopted the imitative term in bad faith; (7) the respective quality of the products; and (8) the sophistication of the relevant population of consumers. See Polaroid, 287 F.2d at 495; Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc., 588 F.3d 97, 115 (2d Cir. 2009). The “evaluation of the Polaroid factors is not a mechanical process where the party with the greatest number of factors weighing in its favor wins. Rather, a court should focus on the ultimate question of whether consumers are likely to be confused.” Nabisco, Inc. v. Warner-Lambert Co., 220 F.3d 43, 46 (2d Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). Though our past cases have always recognized that the “district court’s balancing of the Polaroid factors is subject to de novo review,” some of these cases have purported to afford “considerable deference” to district courts’ findings “with respect to predicate facts underlying each Polaroid factor,” Playtex Prods., Inc. v. Ga.-Pac. Corp., 390 F.3d 158, 162 (2d Cir. 2004), or even to its “finding on each factor” generally, Natural Organics, Inc. v. Nutraceutical Corp., 426 F.3d 576, 578 (2d engagement rings are already in competitive proximity. See, e.g., Paddington Corp. v. Attiki Importers & Distribs., Inc., 996 F.2d 577, 586 (2d Cir. 1993) (“Since the [products] . . . compete in the same market, the district court correctly found that the likelihood-ofbridging-the-gap factor . . . was irrelevant.”). 15 Cir. 2005); see also Cadbury Beverages, Inc. v. Cott Corp., 73 F.3d 474, 478 (2d Cir. 1996). These cases should not be read to suggest that “a district court deciding a motion for summary judgment in a trademark infringement case has . . . greater discretion than it would have in a non-trademark case to resolve disputed issues of fact or draw inferences against the non-moving party.” Patsy’s Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc., 317 F.3d 209, 216 (2d Cir. 2003), abrogated on other grounds by 4 Pillar Dynasty LLC v. N.Y. & Co., 933 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2019); see also Kelly-Brown v. Winfrey, 659 F. App’x 55, 58 n.3 (2d Cir. 2016) (summary order) (noting the inconsistency between a “considerable deference” standard and our responsibility to review a district court’s summary judgment ruling de novo). Though “considerable deference” has become an oft-repeated incantation since we first observed in Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co. “that the district court’s detailed findings on each of the Polaroid factors are entitled to considerable deference,” 799 F.2d 867, 873 (2d Cir. 1986) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 & n.6 (1986), for the proposition that a “district court’s findings of fact on summary judgment, although not required, ‘are extremely helpful to a reviewing court’”), we have never purported to expand a district court’s license to make factual findings at summary judgment beyond those very 16 limited circumstances in which “the uncontroverted evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn in the nonmoving party’s favor” support only a single conclusion, see Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 553 (1999). In other words, a district court will be authorized to find the sorts of facts that are entitled to deference only in circumstances in which the traditional summary judgment standard has been satisfied. And even when it is so authorized, “its subsidiary conclusions as to each Polaroid factor . . . are not immune from appellate review.” Patsy’s Brand, 317 F.3d at 216. As in any other area of law, then, “[i]f a factual inference must be drawn to arrive at a particular finding on a Polaroid factor, and if a reasonable trier of fact could reach a different conclusion, the district court may not properly resolve that issue on summary judgment.” Cadbury, 73 F.3d at 478; see also Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249 (“[A]t the summary judgment stage the judge’s function is not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth . . . but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.”). Moreover, insofar as the determination of whether one of the Polaroid factors favors one party or another involves a legal judgment— which it often does 7—we must review that determination de novo. See Knight v. 7 “For example, there is a considerable component of law in the determination 17 State Univ. of N.Y. at Stony Brook, 880 F.3d 636, 640 (2d Cir. 2018) (“We review questions of law de novo.”). Accordingly, in the majority of cases, we should review de novo both a district court’s determinations as to each Polaroid factor and its ultimate balancing of those factors. Here, the district court found that “Costco has proffered no evidence that raises a disputed issue of material fact with respect to any of the Polaroid factors” and that Tiffany therefore “demonstrated a likelihood of confusion” sufficient to warrant summary judgment in its favor as to its trademark infringement claims. Tiffany & Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 127 F. Supp. 3d 241, 247 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). On appeal, Costco principally contests the district court’s analysis of three of these factors: whether Costco’s customers were actually confused, whether Costco adopted Tiffany’s mark in bad faith, and whether the relevant population of consumers was sufficiently sophisticated to avoid confusion. We conclude that Costco has raised a triable question as to each of these factors and, by extension, the ultimate issue of whether Costco’s actions generated a likelihood of customer confusion. whether a mark has the degree of strength necessary to weigh in favor of the party claiming infringement.” Patsy’s Brand, 317 F.3d at 216. 18
Concluding that Tiffany had established actual customer confusion as a matter of law, the district court pointed to two categories of evidence proffered by Tiffany. First, it referred to the deposition testimony of six Costco customers, each of whom alleged that he or she was confused by Costco’s point-of-sale signs. Second, it described the results of a customer confusion survey and report created by Tiffany’s expert, Dr. Jacob Jacoby. Dr. Jacoby’s report included responses from 944 people surveyed through the internet, 606 of whom identified themselves as Costco patrons who thought that “they [or their significant other] would consider buying a diamond engagement ring at Costco that cost at least $2,500.” J.A. 1,452. Jacoby estimated that of these 606 responders—each of whom was shown a photo of a diamond engagement ring alongside one of Costco’s point-of-sale signs, 8 either in isolation or after seeing photos of other branded items sold by Costco— “more than two out of five . . . were likely confused into believing that Tiffany & Co. was the source of the rings.” Id. at 1,454. The district court deemed this evidence unrebutted and concluded that Costco had failed to raise a factual 8 The sign in Dr. Jacoby’s survey read “639911 / PLATINUM TIFFANY / .70CT VS2,I ROUND / DIAMOND RING / 3199.99.” J.A. 1,539 (emphasis in original). 19 question as to whether customers were actually confused by its use of the word “Tiffany” on its signs. For the following reasons, we disagree. To begin, Costco did seek to rebut Tiffany’s evidence of confusion. First, it argued that the testimony of six customers—out of the 3,349 customers who purchased Tiffany-set rings at Costco during the relevant period—was only de minimis evidence of confusion and insufficient to resolve the issue definitively against Costco. Second, and more importantly, it submitted a report from its own expert, Dr. Russel S. Winer, criticizing Dr. Jacoby’s survey methodology and results. Dr. Winer opined that Dr. Jacoby should have targeted only customers with a “present purchase interest in buying a diamond ring,” and that Dr. Jacoby’s actual survey respondents “could not have been a group whose perceptions provided any valid or reliable predictor of past or future Costco diamond ring purchaser beliefs.” Id. at 4,226. Dr. Winer further asserted that Dr. Jacoby’s study was fatally flawed due to “artificial, contrived and biasing” stimuli that “ignore[d] the reality of the customer purchase process.” Id. at 4,228. For example, Dr. Winer noted that rather than showing survey responders a point-of-sale sign as it would have appeared to customers—in a display case surrounded by other rings identified by “other tags . . . , some of which would have other setting and style 20 types indicated”—Jacoby’s survey showed them only a single ring and sign in isolation. 9 Id. at 4,305. Winer also assessed that on top of these flawed survey conditions, Dr. Jacoby’s screening questions, which required responders to sort words into brand names and descriptive words, “trained” those responders to “bias[] the responses in favor of selecting Tiffany as a brand identifier.” Id. at 4,303. We conclude that this evidence was sufficient to raise a question as to whether potential buyers of Costco’s diamond engagement rings were actually confused by the appearance of the word “Tiffany” on Costco’s signs. In concluding otherwise, the district court observed that Dr. Winer’s criticisms go to the weight of Tiffany’s evidence rather than its admissibility and that he did not perform his own survey to demonstrate affirmatively that Costco’s customers were not confused. But the weight to be given to a particular piece of evidence can be determinative of whether the moving party is entitled to summary judgment or 9 Dr. Winer asserted in his report that although both of the images Dr. Jacoby provided in his survey—one depicting only a single point-of-sale sign and the other depicting a small section of a Costco display case—provided insufficient context to replicate the experience of actual customers in a Costco store, the decrease in putative confusion among the survey respondents who saw the more contextual image was “striking.” J.A. 4,305. A jury was entitled to consider, as Dr. Winer did, “how the percentage [of customers identifying ‘Tiffany’ as a descriptive word rather than a brand] might have changed had the context provided been comparable to the real world experience.” Id. at 4,307. 21 whether a jury could find a material fact favorable to the non-moving party. And in the circumstances here, neither of the putative shortcomings on which the district court relied is sufficient to resolve the customer-confusion factor in Tiffany’s favor as a matter of law. Tiffany bears the burden of proof on its own motion for summary judgment. Resolving all factual inferences in Costco’s favor, a reasonable jury could find that Tiffany failed to present sufficiently persuasive evidence to meet that burden.
In analyzing whether a defendant has acted in bad faith, the question is whether the defendant attempted “to exploit the good will and reputation of a senior user by adopting the mark with the intent to sow confusion between the two companies’ products.” Star Indus., 412 F.3d at 388. We have cautioned that “where the allegedly infringing mark is identical to the registered mark, and its use began subsequent to the plaintiff’s trade-mark registration, the defendant must carry the burden of explanation and persuasion.” Kiki Undies Corp., v. Promenade Hosiery Mills, Inc., 411 F.2d 1097, 1101 (2d Cir. 1969). But “[p]rior knowledge of a senior user’s trade mark does not necessarily give rise to an inference of bad faith and may [actually] be consistent with good faith.” Sports 22 Auth., 89 F.3d at 964 (quoting Arrow Fastener Co. v. Stanley Works, 59 F.3d 384, 397 (2d Cir. 1995)). Indeed, “the intent to compete by imitating the successful features of another’s product is vastly different from the intent to deceive purchasers as to the source of [one’s own] product.” Nora Beverages, Inc. v. Perrier Grp. of Am., Inc., 269 F.3d 114, 123 (2d Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted); see also George Basch Co. v. Blue Coral, Inc., 968 F.2d 1532, 1541 (2d Cir. 1992) (“Absent confusion, imitation of certain successful features in another’s product is not unlawful . . . .”). And as we have consistently observed, “subjective issues such as good faith are singularly inappropriate for determination on summary judgment.” Cadbury, 73 F.3d at 483 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted) (declining to grant summary judgment on the matter of good faith even where the plaintiff’s “registered mark is identical—in style as well as in name—to [the defendant’s] adopted logo . . . [and the defendant’s] explanation is not particularly persuasive”). The district court concluded that “no rational finder of fact could conclude that Costco acted in good faith in adopting the Tiffany mark.” Tiffany, 127 F. Supp. 3d at 252 (emphasis added). It cited several pieces of evidence proffered by Tiffany, including an email from a Costco employee indicating that Costco’s jewelry boxes 23 should have a more “Tiffany or upscale look,” the deposition testimony of a Costco inventory control specialist who acknowledged that she took no action in response to two emails ostensibly indicating customer and employee confusion over the source of Costco’s rings, and photographs and emails that suggest efforts by Costco to “copy Tiffany’s designs by making references to Tiffany designs and sharing links to Tiffany’s website [in communications with vendors].” Id. at 251– 52. The district court acknowledged Costco’s contrary evidence that it had never attempted to adopt the Tiffany mark, that its signs actually used the word “Tiffany” as a brand-independent description of a particular style of diamond setting, and that those signs merely reflected information provided by its own suppliers. Id. at 252. The court nonetheless concluded that a jury could not reasonably credit an argument that “Costco jewelry buyers used the word ‘Tiffany’ in a generic sense when communicating with vendors, while at the same time asking those vendors to copy Tiffany & Co. designs, and that signage incorporating the word ‘Tiffany’ on the resulting merchandise was nothing more than clerical duplication of a generic reference from an invoice.” Id. Again, we disagree. 24 Although a jury could reasonably draw the conclusion that Costco’s interest in emulating Tiffany’s designs spilled over into an intent to mislead buyers as to the origins of its own jewelry, it could also reasonably conclude that Costco intended to borrow “certain successful features [from Tiffany’s] product” without implying that Tiffany actually produced or endorsed the jewelry at issue. George Basch Co., 968 F.2d at 1541. We have consistently recognized that intent to copy a product’s useful, nonprotected attributes should not be equated automatically with an intent to deceive. See Nora Beverages, 269 F.3d at 123. Therefore, Costco’s admitted intent to sell jewelry that looks like Tiffany’s—as opposed to an intent to have its jewelry pass as Tiffany’s—cannot be enough to justify a finding that Costco acted in bad faith in connection with Tiffany’s trademark infringement claim. In concluding otherwise, the district court overlooked substantial evidence that Costco did not attempt to sow confusion among its customers. As the district court recognized in its good faith analysis, two Costco representatives—a diamond buyer and an assistant general merchandise manager—submitted declarations affirming that Costco inventory control personnel took the term “Tiffany” directly from vendor descriptions, that the representatives understood 25 Tiffany as a “generic style name,” and that indeed it was “the only name . . . used to denote [that] type of pronged setting.” 10 J.A. 2,927. Costco backed these claims with evidence that the term “Tiffany” has been used as a generic descriptor—both explicitly in conjunction with a word like “setting” and implicitly by itself—in thousands of advertisements, dictionaries, trade publications, and other public documents since the late 1800s. And as the district court recognized elsewhere in its decision, Costco presented evidence that its rings were not branded with Tiffany’s mark (and indeed were branded with R.B. Diamond’s logo instead); that the rings came in unbranded containers bearing no resemblance to Tiffany’s distinctive robin’s-egg blue packaging; that buyers received Costco-branded receipts, appraisal forms, and other sales documents; and that Costco’s return policy permitted customers to return their rings any time after purchase. 11 10As far as we can tell, Tiffany’s only reply to this evidence is that after Costco voluntarily stopped using the name “Tiffany” on its signs, it was still able to describe those rings’ settings as “Solitaire.” But “Solitaire,” which describes any single gem in a simple setting, is undeniably a less descriptive term than “Tiffany,” which ostensibly describes a specific type of six-prong setting. 11Both Tiffany and Costco point to a customer email asking whether the word “Tiffany” on the label referred to the “Tiffany setting or Tiffany brand,” J.A. 15,333. Consistent with Costco’s argument that it acted in good faith, a Costco employee responded to the customer’s email that “[i]t means Tiffany setting.” Id. at 15,334. Notably, the jury could also consider this email as evidence of an absence of actual customer confusion. See Nora Beverages, 269 F.3d at 124 (“Inquiries about the relationship between the owner of a mark and an alleged infringer do not amount to actual confusion. Indeed, 26 Crediting this evidence, a reasonable jury could conclude that Costco did not intend to mislead its customers and that signs bearing the word “Tiffany” were the product of a good-faith attempt to communicate to its customers the setting style of certain rings that it sold. 12
“Our analysis of consumer sophistication ‘consider[s] the general impression of the ordinary purchaser, buying under the normally prevalent conditions of the market and giving the attention such purchasers usually give in buying that class of goods.’” Star Indus., 412 F.3d at 390 (quoting Sports Auth., 89 F.3d at 965); see also Streetwise Maps, Inc. v. VanDam, Inc., 159 F.3d 739, 746 (2d Cir. 1998). In general, “the more sophisticated the purchaser, the less likely he or she will be confused by the presence of similar marks in the marketplace.” Savin Corp. such inquiries are arguably premised upon a lack of confusion between the products such as to inspire the inquiry itself.” (emphasis in original)). 12A jury would also be entitled to infer good faith from Costco’s conduct after Tiffany asserted that Costco’s had infringed its trademark. Costco offered evidence that it voluntarily ceased using the word “Tiffany” on its product signs within a week of receiving Tiffany’s demand letter. And after Tiffany filed its complaint, Costco wrote to all purchasers of Costco rings bearing a Tiffany-style setting alerting them to Tiffany’s claim and reminding them of their right to return their purchase at any time for a full refund. While Tiffany disputes certain of these facts, we assume in assessing Tiffany’s motion for summary judgment that a jury would resolve those disputes in Costco’s favor. 27 v. Savin Grp., 391 F.3d 439, 461 (2d Cir. 2004). Likewise, “[t]he greater the value of an article[,] the more careful the typical consumer can be expected to be.” Manhattan Indus., Inc. v. Sweater Bee by Banff, Ltd., 627 F.2d 628, 631 (2d Cir. 1980) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although sophistication may usually be proven by direct evidence, including expert opinions or surveys, “in some cases a court is entitled to reach a conclusion about consumer sophistication based solely on the nature of the product or its price.” Star Indus., 412 F.3d at 390. The district court correctly identified the competing expert reports submitted by Dr. Jacoby and Dr. Winer as the principal evidence on the question of customer sophistication. As indicated above, Dr. Jacoby’s study assumed that survey responders who said they “would consider buying a diamond engagement ring at Costco” were representative of customers who would likely interact with Costco’s allegedly infringing point-of-sale signs. Tiffany offered no other evidence regarding the sophistication of the relevant consumer population. In response, Dr. Winer countered that the purchase of an engagement ring is a “high involvement” transaction, and that actual purchasers—as opposed to those who merely “would consider buying an engagement ring”—have, or acquire, substantial “subject matter knowledge and familiarity with the relevant vocabulary.” J.A. 4,226. 28 The district court nonetheless determined that Costco failed to raise a question as to whether its customers were sufficiently sophisticated that its use of the word “Tiffany” would not create confusion. As in its analysis of actual confusion, the district court concluded that Costco’s evidence goes only to “the weight that Tiffany’s evidence should be accorded, and fails to provide competing affirmative evidence regarding the relevant population of consumers.” Tiffany, 127 F. Supp. 3d at 254. Once again, its appraisal erroneously shifted Tiffany’s burden onto Costco. As explained above, the weight of a piece of evidence can be determinative as to whether summary judgment is appropriate. What’s more, it is simply incorrect to say that Costco proffered no affirmative evidence regarding customer sophistication. As the district court otherwise described, Costco did offer evidence, in the form of Dr. Winer’s declaration, that “[i]n the case of purchasing a diamond ring, . . . actual prospective purchasers proximal to the purchase decision definitely know more than people not in the market.” J.A. 4,300. And as Dr. Winer’s report further opined: [A] group of ‘actively in the market’ prospective diamond ring buyers would clearly be more attuned to the marketing of diamond rings, the jargon associated with diamond rings, and the shopping process and experience associated with diamond rings, and thus be more knowledgeable about whether the word Tiffany in the context of the small product labels referred to the ‘Tiffany & Co.’ brand or was being 29 used to describe a particular type of ring setting. Id. Indeed, we have previously recognized that “[t]he purchaser of a diamond ring, particularly of a wedding or engagement ring, will be most discriminating in his purchase, and make it carefully and deliberately.” J.R. Wood & Sons, Inc. v. Reese Jewelry Corp., 278 F.2d 157, 159 (2d Cir. 1960). A jury could reasonably conclude, by crediting Costco’s evidence and rejecting Tiffany’s, that the relevant population of consumers would be sufficiently attentive and discriminating as to recognize that Tiffany had nothing to do with Costco’s diamond engagement rings.
We conclude that Costco’s evidence has, when considered in the aggregate, created a genuine question as to the likelihood of customer confusion. See Star Indus., 412 F.3d at 383. Our conclusion rests primarily on the combination of (1) Costco’s evidence that “Tiffany” is a broadly recognized term denoting a particular style of pronged ring setting and (2) its further indications, backed by prior pronouncements of this Court, that purchasers of diamond engagement rings educate themselves so as to become discerning consumers. Affording full credit to this evidence, a jury could reasonably conclude that 30 consumers of diamond engagement rings would know or learn that “Tiffany” describes a style of setting not unique to rings manufactured by Tiffany, and recognized that Costco used the term only in that descriptive sense. Such consumers may also be distinctly capable of recognizing that Costco’s rings were not manufactured by Tiffany—based, for example, on their price, place of purchase, packaging, or paperwork—and consequently be particularly unlikely to be confused by any aspect of Costco’s point-of-sale signs. Moreover, any Costco customer looking at a Tiffany-set ring identified by a sign that includes the word “Tiffany” would also see a jewelry case full of other unbranded rings, each identified by a sign indicating its own setting type in a similar or identical way. To be sure, Tiffany has made a persuasive (and essentially unrebutted) showing that the general public associates its famous brand with high-quality engagement rings that compete directly with those sold by Costco. But even the potential for confusion inherent in such circumstances cannot dictate a judgment for Tiffany in light of Costco’s evidence that engagement-ring purchasers exercise care and become savvy, and that the context Costco provided at the point of sale was sufficient for those careful customers to recognize that its signs used “Tiffany” only as a generic descriptor. In short, Costco’s use of the word “Tiffany” to 31 describe engagement rings may have created a possibility of confusion. It may even be the more reasonable inference that confusion was likely. But in light of Costco’s competing evidence—and Tiffany’s failure to demonstrate that actual purchasers would not recognize the word “Tiffany” as denoting a commonly used setting style—we decline to hold that no reasonable jury could find that Costco’s signs were not confusing. 13 See Island Software & Comput. Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 264 (2d Cir. 2005) (“[A]t the summary judgment stage, [even if one] inference . . . seems the better of the possible inferences that can be drawn, we must still draw all inferences in favor of the non-moving party.”).