Opinion ID: 6928544
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Was there a Likelihood of Confusion?

Text: Of the eight factors identified in Sleekcraft as relevant in determining likelihood of confusion, the district court found that five factors favor Ashbyweb: 1) strength of the mark, 2) proximity of the markets, 3) evidence of actual confusion, 4) intent in soliciting the mark, and 5) likelihood of expansion. The court found that only one factor favors OAG: type of goods and purchaser care. As to the other two factors, similarity of the marks and marketing channels used, the district court found in favor of OAG, but only as to Ashbyweb’s use of the phrase “THE TRAVEL PLANNER,” standing alone. The district court concluded that there is a likelihood of confusion between OAG’s mark “OAG TRAVEL PLANNER” and Ashby-web’s use of the phrase “THE TRAVEL PLANNER,” standing alone. The court found no such confusion between OAG’s mark and Ashbyweb’s use of the terms “THE TRAVEL PLANNER USA” or “USA TRAVEL PLANNER.” The court therefore enjoined Ashbyweb’s use of the phrase “THE TRAVEL PLANNER,” standing alone, as an infringement on OAG’s mark. The district court might have more carefully applied the eight Sleekeraft factors. A reasonable person could wonder whether the district court was. trying, as OAG suggests, “to split the baby in half.” But as we have recently emphasized, “[t]he standard of review goes a long way towards deciding the case, because, we must defer to the findings of fact of the district court and not reverse unless we have a firm and definite conviction that the court erred.” Fruit of the Loom, 994 F.2d at 1361. In deciding whether the district court clearly erred, we focus not on whether the eight Sleekcmft factors were applied perfectly, but on the district court’s ultimate factual finding concerning likelihood of confusion. Pacific Telesis, 994 F.2d at 1369 (affirming ultimate finding of likelihood of confusion even though district court clearly erred in applying one of the factors). Considered in their entirety, the facts found by the 'district court support the ultimate factual finding of likelihood of confusion.