Opinion ID: 541778
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the trial court erred by failing to find an

Text: 42 overlap in plaintiff's and defendant's markets. 43 Although the trial court found that the products produced by these parties are similar enough that the public may likely attribute them to a single source, memor. op. at 11, the court concluded that there was insignificant overlap between plaintiff's and defendant's markets so that confusion was unlikely. The court wrote: I find it significant that the parties operate through different marketing channels and approach different types of business consumers. Memor. op. at 14. The trial court reasoned that the parties do not advertise in the same publications or attend the same trade shows. Although the court recognized that the parties share some of the same clients, it wrote that they have little, if any, contact with each other in terms of promotion and competition for clients. Id. at 13. 44 Appellant argues that the evidence that the parties shared clients and that both attracted customers through direct mail campaigns shows that the district court erred. There was, in fact, evidence that Motorola received direct mail from both companies. Appellants do not limit their list of potential customers to non-manufacturers. The parties' products are substantially similar, as the district court found. In addition, appellant points out that both parties relied on public relation efforts to market their products. 45 The area and manner of concurrent use factor requires us to consider whether there is a relationship in use, promotion, distribution, or sales between the goods or services of the parties. In re Superior Outdoor Display, Inc., 478 F.2d 1388, 178 U.S.P.Q. 151 (C.C.P.A.1973). The parties' lines of business need not be the same, so long as their  'products [or services] are the kind the public attributes to a single source.'  Int'l Kennel, 846 F.2d at 1089 (citation omitted).  '[A] trade-mark protects the owner against not only its use upon the articles to which he has applied it but also upon such other articles as might naturally or reasonably be supposed to come from him.'  Helene Curtis Indus. v. Church & Dwight Co., 560 F.2d 1325, 1331 (7th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1070, 98 S.Ct. 1252, 55 L.Ed.2d 772 (1978) (quoting California Fruit Growers Exch. v. Windsor Beverages, 118 F.2d 149, 152-53 (7th Cir.1941). The parties need not be in direct competition and their goods and services need not be identical. Halliburton Co. v. Halliburton Pipe and Steel, 207 U.S.P.Q. 318, 320 (S.D.Tex.1980) (concurrent use between large diversified oil field service company and distributor of steel supplies to petroleum companies). 46 The district court's finding of no concurrent use when the parties in fact share a number of clients and marketing methods and the district court's reliance on the one way in which the parties' marketing differed do not sufficiently support its conclusion which we find to be clearly erroneous. 47