Opinion ID: 775328
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Similarity of Marks -- Lapp Factor (1)

Text: 38 Although the degree of similarity between the owner's mark and the alleged infringing mark is but one factor in the multi-factor confusion analysis, we have recognized that when products directly compete, mark similarity may be the most important of the ten factors in Lapp. Fisons, 30 F.3d at 476; see also A&H Sportswear, 237 F.3d at 216 (The single most important factor in determining likelihood of confusion is mark similarity.). As we held in Versa Prods. Co. v. Bifold Co. (Mfg.), 50 F.3d 189, 202 (3d Cir. 1995), unless the allegedly infringing mark... is substantially similar to the protectable mark..., it is highly unlikely that consumers will confuse the product sources represented by the different marks.[I]f the overall impression created by marks is essentially the same, `it is very probable that the marks are confusingly similar.'  Opticians Assn. of Am., 920 F.2d at 195 (quoting J. Thomas McCarthy, 2 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, S 23:7 (2d ed. 1984)). In applying this test, courts attempt to move into the mind of the roving consumer, A&H Sportswear, 237 F.3d at 216, and determine whether the labels create the same overall impression when viewed separately. Fisons, 30 F.3d at 476; see also Banff, Ltd. v. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc., 841 F.2d 486, 492 (2d Cir. 1988). Courts must compare the appearance, sound and meaning of the marks, Harlem Wizards Entm't. Basketball, Inc. v. NBA Props., Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1084, 1096 (D.N.J. 1997), to determine whether the average consumer, on encountering one mark in isolated circumstances of marketplace and having only [a] general recollection of the other, would likely confuse or associate the two. Fisons, 30 F.3d at 477-78. 39 Here, the District Court found Check Point Software's mark was very similar to Checkpoint Systems's mark. The court noted that [w]hen the dominant portions of the two marks are the same and the overall impression created by the marks is essentially the same `it is very probable that the marks are confusingly similar.'  Checkpoint Sys., 104 F. Supp. 2d at 457-58 (quoting Opticians Assn. of Am., 920 F.2d at 195). The court found the dominant portion of each parties' trademark is the word Checkpoint. Even though Check Point Software has at times used the mark in slightly different forms including, Checkpoint, CheckPoint, or Check Point, the dominant features of its mark are still the words check and point. Additionally because Systems, Software, Technologies, and Inc., are generic or descriptive terms, the District Court found their addition to the dominant terms check and point would not lead the average consumer to disassociate the products. J. Thomas McCarthy, 3 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, S 23:50 (4th ed. 2000) (The Trademark Board has said that the general rule is that a subsequent user may not avoid likely confusion by appropriating another's entire mark and adding descriptive or non-descriptive matter to it.). We agree. The District Court did not clearly err in finding the overall commercial impression of the parties' marks was confusingly similar. 40 On appeal, Checkpoint Systems contends the District Court ignored its finding of mark similarity when it ultimately determined there was no likelihood of confusion. But mark similarity is not necessarily determinative of likely confusion, particularly when the products do not directly compete. A&H Sportswear, 237 F.3d at 214 ([W]hen the marks directly compete... the factor regarding the similarity of marks may increase in importance, but it does not eliminate the other factors entirely.); Fisons, 30 F.3d at 473 (Where the goods or services are not competing the similarity of the marks is only one of a number of factors the court must examine to determine likelihood of confusion.). Here, the District Court determined that in weighing all the Lapp factors, there was not a strong likelihood of confusion. We see no error.