Opinion ID: 197145
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Similarity of Marks. The service mark used by

Text: 1. Similarity of Marks. Winship is not merely similar; it is identical a photocopied reproduction. Still, similarity is determined on the basis of the designation's total effect, see, e.g., Pignons, 657 F.2d at 487 (considering additional, source-identifying words printed on goods and substantial differences in packaging), and infringement does not exist, though the marks be identical and the goods very similar, when the evidence indicates no [likelihood of confusion]. James Burrough Ltd. v. Sign of the Beefeater, Inc., 7For example, one IAM flier of the when did you stop beating your wife? variety, asks: WHAT LIES OR HALF TRUTHS DO[ES WINSHIP] PLAN TO SPREAD DURING OUR DEBATE? The IAM materials also describe anticipated company tactics or tricks in unflattering terms and warn employees to LOOK OUT FOR CORPORATE TRAPS. The Winship literature, discussed above, speaks for itself. 16 540 F.2d 266, 274 (7th Cir. 1976). What is more, we have recognized that in certain circumstances otherwise similar marks are not likely to be confused if they are used in conjunction with clearly displayed names, logos or other source-identifying designations of the manufacturer. See Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Armatron Int'l, Inc., 999 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1993); Pignons, 657 F.2d at 487. Here, the lengthy propagandistic message that Winship printed in large type on the fictitious invoice and the conspicuous, easily identifiable fliers it sent to introduce the letters dilute the inference that might otherwise be drawn from the similarity between the marks. 2. Similarity of Services. Because the parties do not