View a Sample Chapter

§ 4:10.3 LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSIONAUSTRALIANHAIR SALADversusHAIR SALADCONDITIONER 261WEED EATER versus LEAF EATER 262CAESARS PALACE versus TRUMP’S PALACE 263CARNIVAL CRUISELINESversus CARNIVAL CLUB 264PROZAC versus HERBROZAC 264.1HOME-MARKET.COM versus HOME-MARKET.NET 264.2ZOG versus ZOGGS TOGS 264.3§ 4:10.3 Common Portion Weak, RecessiveWhere the common portion is weak, otherwise minor differences inthe remaining portions could make for marks which, overall, are notconfusingly similar. 265[T]hat a descriptive component of a mark may be given littleweight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusionreflect[s] the reality of the market place. Where consumers arefaced with various usages of descriptive words, our experience tellsus that we and other consumers distinguish between these usages.261. Redmond Prods., Inc. v. Body Shop, Inc., 20 U.S.P.Q.2d 1233 (D. Minn.1991).262. Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Armatron Int’l, Inc., 999 F.2d 1, 27 U.S.P.Q.2d1460 (1st Cir. 1993).263. Trump v. Caesars World, Inc., 645 F. Supp. 1015, 230 U.S.P.Q. 594 (D.N.J.1986), aff’d, 2 U.S.P.Q.2d 1806 (3d Cir. 1987).264. Blumenfeld Dev. Corp. v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 669 F. Supp. 1297, 4U.S.P.Q.2d 1577 (E.D. Pa. 1987).264.1. Eli Lilly v. Natural Answers, 233 F.3d 456, 462, 56 U.S.P.Q.2d 1942 (7thCir. 2000).264.2. Shade’s Landing v. Williams, 76 F. Supp. 2d 983, 990 (D. Minn. 1999)(finding the marks “quite similar”; “[b]ecause all domain names includeone of these [top level domain name] extensions, the distinction between adomain name ending with “.com” and the same name ending with “.net”is not highly significant”: non-infringement found on the other factors).264.3. In re Ginc, 90 U.S.P.Q.2d 1472 (T.T.A.B. 2007).265. Freedom Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Way, 757 F.2d 1176, 1183, 226 U.S.P.Q. 123,127–28 (11th Cir. 1985) (“FREEDOM”), citing Sun Banks of Fla., Inc. v.Sun Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 651 F.2d 311, 316, 211 U.S.P.Q. 844, 848–49(5th Cir. 1981) (“SUN”); Everest Capital v. Everest Funds, 393 F.3d 755,761, 73 U.S.P.Q.2d 1580, 1584 (8th Cir. 2005); Falcon Rice Mill, Inc. v.Cmty. Rice Mill, Inc., 725 F.2d 336, 346, 222 U.S.P.Q. 197, 204 (5th Cir.1984) (“slight variation in color or design”).4–58