Opinion ID: 2977743
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Confusion

Text: Actual evidence of confusion is potentially strong evidence of a likelihood of confusion. Wynn Oil Co. v. Thomas, 839 F.2d 1183, 1188 (6th Cir. 1988). At trial, CBC provided a confusion log documenting twenty-two incidents of actual confusion between customers of CBC and CFG. It also offered four surveys to prove the likelihood of confusion. The district court did not clearly err in assigning minimal weight to this evidence. 3 CBC contends that the district court erred in relying on CBC internal documents to demonstrate the local weakness of the Citizens mark. CBC argues that these documents “are unsupported by any methodology, foundation or support.” This argument does not articulate a coherent challenge given the clearly erroneous standard of review for findings of fact. See Harlamert v. World Finer Foods, Inc., 489 F.3d 767, 771 (6th Cir. 2007). CBC did not challenge the admissibility of this evidence either below or on appeal, and the district court weighed the evidence in the record in finding that CBC’s mark was not strong. We cannot say that the district court committed a clear error in doing so. See id. - 10 - No. 08-1773 Citizens Banking Corp. v. Citizens Fin. Group The district court found the confusion log was of limited utility because of the low number of incidents logged, the log was created before CFG used the RBS Citizens mark in Michigan, and because, at the time the log was created, both CBC and CFG were operating as Citizens Banks albeit in different states. As CFG was in the process of changing its name from Citizens Bank to RBS Citizens, the district court appropriately minimized the weight given to the log. The district court also discounted the surveys. While surveys can provide evidence of confusion, “[w]here a survey presented on the issue of actual confusion reflects methodological errors, a court may choose to limit the importance it accords the study in its likelihood of confusion analysis.” Leelanau, 502 F.3d at 518. In explaining its reasoning, the district court noted several flaws in the surveys, including the improper use of a control and the size of the weatherball in the surveys’ representation of CBC’s mark. The district court’s findings are supported by the record, and so we find that the district court did not commit clear error in minimizing the weight given to CBC’s surveys.4 4 It is true that the fourth survey did not suffer from either of the flaws identified by the district court. However, the district court’s finding of fact was that the surveys were “highly flawed.” That the district court then went on to identify two of the flaws does not mean that the surveys were otherwise without flaw. Under clear error review, we may review the entire record. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 572 (1985). We find that, based on the entirety of the record, the district court did not commit clear error in minimizing the weight given to the survey evidence. In addition to the flaws explicitly noted by the district court, the surveys also failed to mimic the purchase conditions associated with bank customers. See Leelanau, 502 F.3d at 518; Coherent, Inc. v. Coherent Technologies, Inc., 935 F.2d 1122, 1126 (10th Cir. 1991); see also J. Thomas McCarthy, 4 MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION § 23:2.50 (stating that a survey is only evidence of confusion if “the survey mirrors the real world setting which can create an instance of actual confusion”). As the district court made clear elsewhere in its opinion, bank customers make their purchase decisions after extensive research. The surveys, in contrast, were only five minutes long and did not provide the respondents the kinds of information typically relied on by bank customers. - 11 - No. 08-1773 Citizens Banking Corp. v. Citizens Fin. Group