Jeffrey Sorensen v. WD-40 Company

Summarize Case

Related Cases

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ JEFFREYȱSORENSEN,ȱ PlaintiffȬAppellant,ȱ v.ȱ WDȬ40ȱCOMPANY,ȱ DefendantȬAppellee.ȱ ____________________ȱ AppealȱfromȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱDistrictȱCourtȱforȱtheȱ NorthernȱDistrictȱofȱIllinois,ȱWesternȱDivision.ȱ No.ȱ12ȬcvȬ50417ȱ—ȱFrederickȱJ.ȱKapala,ȱJudge.ȱ ____________________ȱ ARGUEDȱFEBRUARYȱ25,ȱ2015ȱ—ȱDECIDEDȱJUNEȱ11,ȱ2015ȱ ____________________ȱ BeforeȱBAUER,ȱFLAUM,ȱandȱMANION,ȱCircuitȱJudges.ȱ FLAUM,ȱ Circuitȱ Judge.ȱ Plaintiffȱ Jeffreyȱ Sorensenȱ isȱ theȱ founderȱ andȱ CEOȱ ofȱ Inhibitorȱ Technologyȱ Corporation,ȱ whichȱproducesȱaȱlineȱofȱrustȬinhibitingȱproductsȱcontainingȱ aȱ substanceȱ calledȱ volatileȱ corrosionȱ inhibitorȱ (“VCI”).ȱ Thisȱ lineȱ ofȱ productsȱ isȱ brandedȱ withȱ theȱ federallyȱ registeredȱ trademarkȱ THEȱ INHIBITOR.ȱ Thatȱ wordȱ markȱ isȱ ownedȱ byȱ Sorensen;ȱheȱalsoȱclaimsȱcommonȱlawȱtrademarkȱrightsȱinȱaȱ 2ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ designȱ markȱ associatedȱ withȱ hisȱ products,ȱ anȱ orangeȬandȬ blackȱcrosshair.ȱȱ Inȱ 2011,ȱ theȱ WDȬ40ȱ Company,ȱ theȱ wellȬknownȱ makerȱ ofȱ sprayȱ lubricant,ȱ introducedȱ aȱ newȱ subȬbrandȱ ofȱ productsȱ knownȱ asȱ theȱ WDȬ40ȱ Specialistȱ productȱ line.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Sorensen,ȱtheȱbrandingȱforȱtheseȱproductsȱinfringesȱuponȱhisȱ marks.ȱ Inȱ particular,ȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ WDȬ40ȱ products—WDȬ40ȱ Specialistȱ LongȬTermȱ Corrosionȱ Inhibitor,ȱ whichȱ containsȱ VCIȱ andȱ hasȱ aȱ purposeȱ similarȱ toȱ thatȱ ofȱ Sorensen’sȱ prodȬ ucts—containsȱ onȱ itsȱ packagingȱ bothȱ theȱ wordȱ “inhibitor”ȱ andȱanȱorangeȱcrosshair.ȱSo,ȱSorensenȱfiledȱsuitȱagainstȱWDȬ 40ȱinȱtheȱNorthernȱDistrictȱofȱIllinois,ȱallegingȱtrademarkȱinȬ fringementȱ andȱ unfairȱ competitionȱ underȱ bothȱ federalȱ andȱ Illinoisȱlaw.ȱ Theȱdistrictȱcourtȱgrantedȱsummaryȱjudgmentȱinȱfavorȱofȱ WDȬ40ȱonȱallȱcounts.ȱItȱfoundȱthatȱWDȬ40’sȱuseȱofȱtheȱwordȱ “inhibitor”ȱonȱtheȱlabelȱofȱWDȬ40ȱSpecialistȱLongȬTermȱCorȬ rosionȱInhibitorȱwasȱaȱnonȬtrademarkȱdescriptiveȱfairȱuseȱofȱ theȱ word.ȱAsȱtoȱtheȱcrosshairȱmark,ȱ theȱdistrictȱcourtȱfoundȱ thatȱ Sorensenȱ hadȱ notȱ presentedȱ sufficientȱ evidenceȱ toȱ demonstrateȱ aȱ genuineȱ issueȱ ofȱ materialȱ factȱ asȱ toȱ aȱ likeliȬ hoodȱ ofȱ confusion.ȱ Sorensenȱ appealsȱ theȱ grantȱ ofȱ summaryȱ judgment.ȱWeȱaffirmȱtheȱjudgmentȱofȱtheȱdistrictȱcourt.ȱȱ I.ȱBackgroundȱ Inȱ1997,ȱJeffreyȱSorensenȱfoundedȱaȱcompanyȱcalledȱVanȱ Pattenȱ Industriesȱ andȱ beganȱ sellingȱ rustȱ preventativeȱ prodȬ uctsȱunderȱtheȱnameȱTHEȱINHIBITOR.ȱThatȱcompanyȱexistȬ edȱ untilȱ 2010.ȱ Now,ȱ Sorensenȱ isȱ theȱ CEOȱ ofȱ Inhibitorȱ TechȬ nologyȱCorporation,ȱwhichȱheȱfoundedȱandȱwhichȱcontinuesȱ toȱ sellȱ THEȱ INHIBITORȱ lineȱ ofȱ products.ȱ Theseȱ productsȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ 3 containȱ VCI,ȱwhichȱpreventsȱ corrosionȱ byȱ creatingȱaȱ chemiȬ calȱbarrierȱonȱmaterialsȱthatȱrepelsȱmoistureȱandȱwater.ȱȱ Sorensenȱ claimsȱ toȱ ownȱ twoȱ trademarksȱ relatedȱ toȱ hisȱ lineȱofȱproducts.ȱFirst,ȱheȱisȱtheȱownerȱofȱtheȱwordȱmarkȱTHEȱ INHIBITOR,ȱ whichȱ wasȱ registeredȱ onȱ theȱ Unitedȱ Statesȱ PaȬ tentȱandȱTrademarkȱOffice’sȱPrincipalȱRegisterȱonȱAugustȱ6,ȱ 2002.ȱ Seeȱ THEȱ INHIBITOR,ȱ Registrationȱ No.ȱ 2,604,283.ȱ Thatȱ markȱ attainedȱ incontestableȱ statusȱ inȱ Augustȱ 2008.ȱ Second,ȱ Sorensenȱ claimsȱ ownershipȱ ofȱ aȱ commonȱ lawȱ (i.e.,ȱ unregisȬ tered)ȱ trademarkȱ inȱ aȱ crosshairȱ design,ȱ whichȱ consistsȱ ofȱ aȱ blackȱ crosshairȱ symbolȱ overȱ anȱ orangeȱ background,ȱ withȱ aȱ differentȱblackȱsymbolȱinȱeachȱquadrantȱofȱtheȱcrosshairȱ(theȱ “Sorensenȱ crosshair”).1ȱ Theȱ districtȱ courtȱ assumedȱ withoutȱ decidingȱthatȱtheseȱmarksȱwereȱvalidȱandȱprotectable.ȱ Sorensenȱ sellsȱ aȱ varietyȱ ofȱ productsȱ usingȱ theseȱ marks,ȱ includingȱ “plugs,”ȱ “proȱ chips,”ȱ sprayȱ oil,ȱ oilȱ wipes,ȱ grease,ȱ degreaser,ȱ covers,ȱ “polyȱ bags,”ȱ “VCIȱ paper,”ȱ andȱ wipingȱ cloths,ȱallȱofȱwhichȱcontainȱVCI.ȱTheȱwordsȱTHEȱINHIBITORȱ appearȱ consistentlyȱ onȱ allȱ ofȱ theseȱ products.ȱ Theȱ crosshairȱ designȱ mark,ȱ however,ȱ appearsȱ onȱ onlyȱ someȱ ofȱ hisȱ prodȬ ucts,ȱandȱitsȱappearanceȱisȱinconsistent.ȱForȱexample,ȱonȱtheȱ VCIȱProȱChipsȱandȱtheȱV80ȱVCIȱWipingȱCloth—amongȱothȬ ers—thereȱ isȱ noȱ crosshair,ȱ butȱ ratherȱ onlyȱ anȱ orangeȬandȬ blackȱ bull’sȬeyeȱ thatȱ replacesȱ theȱ “O”ȱ inȱ aȱ stylizedȱ THEȱ INHIBITORȱlogo.ȱButȱonȱtheȱV80ȱVCIȱOilȱBlendȱandȱtheȱV80ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 1ȱBelow,ȱ Sorensenȱ alsoȱ arguedȱ thatȱ heȱ ownedȱ aȱ third,ȱ unregistered,ȱ trademarkȱinȱtheȱ“inhibitorȱdesignȱmark,”ȱwhichȱisȱaȱstylizedȱversionȱofȱ THEȱINHIBITORȱinȱwhichȱtheȱ“O”ȱhasȱbeenȱreplacedȱwithȱtheȱcrosshairȱ designȱ mark.ȱ Sorensen’sȱ briefsȱ onȱ appealȱ doȱ notȱ mentionȱ thisȱ mark,ȱ however,ȱsoȱweȱdoȱnotȱdiscussȱitȱfurther.ȱȱ 4ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ30667ȱ VCIȱ Oilȱ O Wipe,ȱ theȱ t crosshaairȱ markȱ ap ppearsȱ both hȱ onȱ itsȱ ow wnȱ andȱa asȱtheȱ“O”ȱinȱTHEȱINH HIBITOR.ȱ ȱ ȱ ItemsȱinȱTH HEȱINHIBIITORȱLineeȱ ȱ So orensenȱ gennerallyȱ targ getsȱ hisȱ saalesȱ atȱ fireaarm,ȱ fishin ng,ȱ andȱhhuntingȱentthusiasts,ȱasȱwellȱasȱm membersȱofȱ theȱmilitarry.ȱ Untilȱ2008,ȱheȱprromotedȱhiisȱproductsȱ inȱvarious huntingȱan ndȱ fishin ngȱprintȱanddȱonlineȱmeedia;ȱsinceȱ then,ȱheȱhaasȱusedȱFacceȬ bookȱ andȱhisȱweebsiteȱasȱhisȱprimaryȱm methodsȱoffȱadvertisin ng.ȱ Sorennsenȱalsoȱpromotesȱhisȱproductsȱ atȱtradeȱsh howsȱandȱb byȱ worddȱ ofȱ mouth.ȱ Sinceȱ Julyyȱ 2012,ȱ hissȱ chipsȱ and dȱ plugsȱ havveȱ beenȱ soldȱ inȱ th heȱ tools,ȱ sttorage,ȱ and dȱ toolȱ boxxȱ sectionsȱ ofȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ 5 Mena ardsȱ retailȱ storesȱ inȱ theȱ Midwwest.ȱ Inȱ hissȱ depositioon,ȱ Sorennsenȱ alsoȱ sttatedȱ thatȱ heȱ h wasȱ worrkingȱ onȱ geettingȱ hisȱ o oilȱ produuctsȱintoȱM Menards,ȱbutȱhasȱnotȱyeetȱdoneȱso.ȱ Heȱalsoȱsaidȱ thatȱh hisȱproducttsȱareȱsoldȱiinȱotherȱbig gȱboxȱstoressȱandȱsmalllerȱ hardwwareȱstoressȱacrossȱtheȱcountry.ȱȱ ȱ So orensenȱCrrosshair ȱ ȱȱȱW WDȬ40ȱCrossshairȱ ȱ WDȬ40ȱisȱaȱw W wellȬknown nȱproducerȱ ofȱmultipu urposeȱlubrriȬ cantȱ spray.ȱ s Itsȱ primaryȱ p prooductȱ carrieesȱ aȱ tradem markȱ consisstȬ ingȱ ofȱ o aȱ yellow wȱ shieldȱ bea aringȱ theȱ n nameȱ “WD DȬ40”ȱ inȱ bluueȱ charaacters.ȱAcco ordingȱtoȱaȱssurveyȱcond ductedȱbyȱttheȱcompan nyȱ andȱ submittedȱ s intoȱ theȱ reecord,ȱ fourȱ outȱ ofȱ fiv veȱ American nsȱ haveȱ usedȱWDȬ4 40ȱproductts.ȱInȱlateȱ20011,ȱWDȬ400ȱintroduceedȱ aȱsubbȬbrandȱcallledȱtheȱWD DȬ40ȱSpeciaalistȱproducctȱline.ȱTheereȱ areȱ eiightȱ produ uctsȱ inȱ thisȱ line.ȱ Withȱ oneȱ excepttion,ȱ theyȱ aallȱ comeeȱ inȱ metalȱ aerosolȱ a sprayȱ bottles withȱ theȱ W WDȬ40ȱ shieldȱ aboveeȱtheȱtradem markedȱSPE ECIALIST mark.ȱBelo owȱthatȱisȱth heȱ specifficȱ productt’sȱ name,ȱ su uchȱ asȱ “LoongȬTermȱ C Corrosionȱ In nȬ hibitoor,”ȱandȱbelowȱthatȱissȱtheȱcrossh hairȱdesignȱ thatȱisȱatȱiisȬ sueȱinnȱthisȱsuitȱ(ttheȱ“WDȬ40 0ȱcrosshair””).ȱȱ WDȬ40ȱ W obtaiinedȱ aȱ reg gisteredȱ dessignȱ markȱ inȱ aȱ simp pleȱ black kȬandȬwhiteeȱcrosshairȱd design.ȱOnȱ theȱbottless,ȱthough,ȱth heȱ 6ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ30667ȱ WDȬ4 40ȱ crosshaiirȱ appearsȱ differently yȱ onȱ eachȱ p product.ȱ Forȱ exammple,ȱ onȱ theeȱ LongȬTerrmȱ Corrosio onȱ Inhibitoor,ȱ theȱ crosssȬ hairȱisȱmadeȱofȱa aȱgrayȱcrosssȱoverȱaȱburrntȱorangeȱ backgroun nd,ȱ withȱ aȱ blackȱ ciircleȱ perim meterȱ andȱ aaȱ differenttȱ silverȬblacckȱ symb bolȱ inȱ eachȱ quadrantȱ ofȱ theȱ crossshair.ȱ Theȱ backgroun ndȱ colorȱ andȱ symb bolsȱ areȱ diifferentȱ onȱ eachȱ ofȱ th heȱ Specialiistȱ produ ucts.ȱ Becauuseȱ ofȱ itsȱ orrangeȱ crossshairȱ andȱ iitsȱ name,ȱ th heȱ LongȬTermȱ Corrrosionȱ Inhiibitorȱ isȱ offȱ centralȱ im mportanceȱ toȱ thisȱ case.ȱ c Thatȱ productȱ p isȱ alsoȱ impo rtantȱ becau useȱ ofȱ itsȱ inȬ grediientsȱ andȱ fuunction;ȱ itȱ containsȱ V VCIȱ andȱ isȱ meantȱ toȱ in nȬ hibitȱ rustȱforȱaȱllongȱperiod dȱofȱtime.ȱA AccordingȱttoȱWDȬ40,ȱ inȱ mark ketingȱ itsȱ Sp pecialistȱ prroducts,ȱ th heȱ company yȱ focusesȱ o onȱ tradesmen,ȱindu ustrialȱconssumers,ȱauttoȱconsumeers,ȱconstru ucȬ tionȱ workers,ȱ w anndȱ mainten nanceȱ work kers,ȱ withȱ theȱ greateestȱ focussȱ onȱ theȱ auttoȱ industry y.ȱ Theȱ Speccialistȱ produ uctsȱ areȱ prroȬ moted dȱ inȱ numerrousȱ printȱ andȱ onlineeȱ media,ȱ no oneȱ ofȱ whicchȱ overlapȱ withȱ th heȱ mediaȱ in nȱ whichȱ Sorensen’sȱ prroductsȱ hav veȱ beenȱadvertised.ȱ ȱ ȱ WDȬ40ȱSpecialisstȱLineȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ 7 ȱ WDȬ40ȱSpecialistȱLo ongȬTermȱC CorrosionȱIInhibitorȱ ȱ WDȬ40’sȱdeci W isionȱtoȱdev velopȱtheȱSp pecialistȱlinneȱwasȱledȱb byȱ anȱ exxecutiveȱ na amedȱ Grahamȱ Milner, r,ȱ whoȱ head dedȱ aȱ grouupȱ calleddȱtheȱBrand dȱExtension nȱExploratio onȱProject.ȱ AtȱhisȱdepoȬ sition n,ȱMilnerȱdeeniedȱthatȱW WDȬ40ȱeveerȱconsidereedȱforming gȱaȱ partnnershipȱwith hȱSorensen’’sȱcompany y.ȱHowever,,ȱaȱdocumentȱ produ ucedȱ forȱ WDȬ40ȱ W byȱ an nȱ outsideȱ cconsultingȱ g group,ȱ InnnoȬ vationnȱ Edge,ȱ suuggestedȱ theȱ possibilittyȱ ofȱ WDȬ440ȱ formingȱ aȱ partnnershipȱ with hȱ oneȱ ofȱ fiv veȱ firmsȱ tooȱ produceȱ aaȱ newȱ corrroȬ sionȱiinhibitionȱp product;ȱon neȱofȱtheȱfiv veȱfirmsȱmeentionedȱwasȱ Vanȱ Pattenȱ P Induustries,ȱ Sorrensen’sȱ fo ormerȱ comp pany.ȱ Miln nerȱ stateddȱthatȱhisȱteeamȱfirstȱbeecameȱawarreȱofȱVanȱPaattenȱasȱaȱpoȬ tentiaalȱtechnolog gyȱproviderrȱwhenȱheȱ receivedȱth hisȱdocumentȱ inȱ 20009ȱ orȱ 2010..ȱ Milnerȱ alssoȱ saidȱ thaatȱ heȱ wasȱ aawareȱ ofȱ Vaanȱ PattennȱbeforeȱW WDȬ40’sȱdeciisionȱtoȱuseeȱtheȱnameȱ “LongȬTerrmȱ Corro osionȱ Inhib bitor,”ȱ buttȱ heȱ denieedȱ anyȱ kn nowledgeȱ ofȱ Soren nsen’sȱcrossshairȱdesign nȱmark.ȱAcccordingȱtoȱ Milner,ȱWD DȬ 40’sȱ marketingȱ m forȱ f theȱ Speecialistȱ lineeȱ focusesȱ o onȱ mechaniicsȱ andȱ otherȱ o professionalȱ useers,ȱ butȱ nottȱ theȱ huntin ngȱ orȱ fishin ngȱ indusstry.ȱ 8ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ Milnerȱ alsoȱ testifiedȱ thatȱ WDȬ40ȱ hadȱ consideredȱ usingȱ otherȱ namesȱ forȱ thisȱ product,ȱ includingȱ “corrosionȬ preventingȱ spray,”ȱ “advancedȱ corrosionȱ preventer,”ȱ andȱ “rustȬpreventingȱ spray.”ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Milner,ȱ theȱ nameȱ LongȬTermȱ Corrosionȱ Inhibitorȱ wasȱ chosenȱ dueȱ toȱ findingsȱ byȱanȱoutsideȱresearchȱagency.ȱTheȱdistrictȱcourtȱfoundȱthatȱ thereȱ areȱ multipleȱ productsȱ onȱ theȱ marketȱ containingȱ VCIȱ andȱ displayingȱ theȱ wordȱ “inhibitor”ȱ thatȱ areȱ notȱ manufacȬ turedȱorȱsoldȱbyȱeitherȱpartyȱtoȱthisȱcase.ȱTheȱWDȬ40ȱcrossȬ hairȱdesignȱwasȱcreatedȱbyȱECHOȱBrandȱDesign,ȱaȱLondonȬ basedȱ firm.ȱ WDȬ40ȱ adoptedȱ theȱ designȱ afterȱ testingȱ itȱ withȱ consumers.ȱȱ Anotherȱ WDȬ40ȱ executive,ȱ Mariaȱ Mitchell,ȱ wasȱ alsoȱ deȬ posed.ȱ Sheȱ testifiedȱ thatȱ sheȱ hadȱ neverȱ heardȱ ofȱ Sorensen,ȱ VanȱPatten,ȱorȱTHEȱINHIBITORȱproductsȱpriorȱ toȱtheȱfilingȱ ofȱ thisȱ suit.ȱAtȱ herȱ deposition,ȱ Mitchellȱ identifiedȱ aȱ 10Ȭpageȱ documentȱgeneratedȱbyȱInnovationȱEdgeȱentitledȱ“Executiveȱ Summary,”ȱ whichȱ WDȬ40ȱ hadȱ producedȱ inȱ discoveryȱ andȱ whichȱ reads:ȱ “Theȱ resultingȱ productȱ [WDȬ40’sȱ VCIȱ spray]ȱ mayȱhaveȱsomeȱcharacteristicsȱrelatedȱto,ȱforȱexample,ȱ…ȱInȬ hibitor®ȱ VCIȱ technologyȱ fromȱ Vanȱ Pattenȱ Industries.”ȱ Mitchellȱ admittedȱ thatȱ theȱ documentȱ indicatedȱ thatȱ WDȬ40ȱ hadȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ Vanȱ Pattenȱ andȱ Theȱ Inhibitorȱ lineȱ ofȱ productsȱbutȱsheȱdidȱnotȱknowȱwhenȱWDȬ40ȱcameȱintoȱposȬ sessionȱofȱtheȱdocument.ȱȱ CherylȱPerkins,ȱtheȱfounderȱofȱInnovationȱEdge,ȱwasȱalsoȱ deposed.ȱ Sheȱ describedȱ theȱ makingȱ ofȱ thatȱ Executiveȱ SumȬ mary,ȱandȱ acknowledgedȱanȱemailȱ sentȱbyȱ InnovationȱEdgeȱ toȱWDȬ40ȱthatȱlistedȱVanȱPattenȱasȱaȱprospectiveȱpartnerȱforȱ VCIȱtechnologyȱdevelopment.ȱAnotherȱdocument,ȱ“ConcepȬ tualȱ Ideasȱ Presentedȱ toȱ Innovationedge,ȱ LLC,”ȱ wasȱ createdȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ 9 byȱInnovationȱEdgeȱandȱsentȱtoȱindividualsȱatȱWDȬ40ȱinȱearȬ lyȱ2010.ȱThatȱdocumentȱincludesȱaȱreferenceȱtoȱVanȱPattenȱasȱ aȱ possibleȱ partner,ȱ asȱ doesȱ anotherȱ documentȱ sentȱ fromȱ InȬ novationȱ Edgeȱ toȱ WDȬ40ȱ calledȱ “WDȬ40ȱ Brandȱ Extensionȱ ExplorationȱProjectȱBusinessȱCaseȬCorrosionȱProducts.”ȱPerȬ kinsȱ statedȱ thatȱ Innovationȱ Edgeȱ neverȱ incorporatedȱ anyȱ ofȱ Sorensen’sȱproductsȱintoȱanyȱpresentationȱorȱdocumentȱproȬ videdȱ toȱ WDȬ40,ȱ andȱ thatȱ sheȱ hadȱ neverȱ visitedȱ Sorensen’sȱ website,ȱ thoughȱ theȱ websiteȱ addressȱ wasȱ referredȱ toȱ inȱ aȱ documentȱ producedȱ byȱ Innovationȱ Edge.ȱ Perkinsȱ explainedȱ thatȱsomeoneȱelseȱatȱInnovationȱEdgeȱhadȱreviewedȱtheȱwebȬ siteȱ priorȱ toȱ theȱ preparationȱ ofȱ thatȱ document.ȱ Innovationȱ Edgeȱ didȱ notȱ participateȱ inȱ theȱ designȱ ofȱ theȱ packagingȱ orȱ labelsȱ forȱ theȱ Specialistȱ lineȱ andȱ didȱ notȱ suggestȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱwordȱ“inhibitor”ȱorȱtheȱcrosshairȱdesign.ȱȱ Nicholasȱ Dormon,ȱ theȱ managingȱ directorȱ andȱ coȬownerȱ ofȱ ECHO,ȱ theȱ firmȱ thatȱ designedȱ theȱ WDȬ40ȱ crosshair,ȱ proȬ videdȱ aȱ declaration.ȱ Heȱ sworeȱ thatȱ heȱ hadȱ neverȱ heardȱ ofȱ Sorensen,ȱ Vanȱ Patten,ȱ theȱ Inhibitorȱ productȱ line,ȱ orȱ theȱ crosshairȱ mark,ȱ andȱ thatȱ noneȱ ofȱ theseȱ wereȱ consideredȱ whenȱECHOȱdesignedȱtheȱWDȬ40ȱcrosshair.ȱ Additionalȱ testimonyȱ wasȱ givenȱ byȱ WDȬ40’sȱ Seniorȱ Viceȱ Presidentȱ ofȱ NorthȱAmericanȱ Sales,ȱ PeterȱAndrewȱ Dumiak.ȱ Heȱtestifiedȱthat,ȱpriorȱtoȱthisȱlitigation,ȱheȱwasȱnotȱawareȱofȱ Sorensenȱorȱhisȱcompanies,ȱproducts,ȱorȱtrademarks.ȱHeȱalsoȱ testifiedȱ thatȱ WDȬ40ȱ productsȱ areȱ soldȱ throughȱ variousȱ channels,ȱ includingȱ bigȱ boxȱ storesȱ suchȱ asȱ Homeȱ Depot,ȱ Lowe’s,ȱ andȱ Menards;ȱ “mass”ȱ storesȱ suchȱ asȱ Walmartȱ andȱ Target;ȱ “club”ȱ storesȱ suchȱ asȱ Costcoȱ andȱ Sam’s;ȱ automotiveȱ storesȱsuchȱasȱAutozoneȱandȱPepȱBoys;ȱhardwareȱstoresȱsuchȱ asȱ Aceȱ andȱ Trueȱ Value;ȱ andȱ throughȱ industrialȱ distributorsȱ 10ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ suchȱ asȱ Fastenalȱ andȱ Grainger.ȱ WDȬ40ȱ alsoȱ sellsȱ toȱ governȬ mentȱ agenciesȱ suchȱ asȱ Armedȱ Forcesȱ Informationȱ Servicesȱ (“AFIS”)ȱ andȱ theȱ Defenseȱ Commissaryȱ Agencyȱ (“DeCA”),ȱ whichȱprovideȱ theȱ productsȱthroughȱmilitaryȱ commissaries.ȱ Dumiakȱ alsoȱ testifiedȱ thatȱ WDȬ40ȱ doesȱ notȱ sellȱ directlyȱ toȱ fishingȱ andȱ huntingȱ storesȱ suchȱ asȱ Bassȱ Proȱ Shopȱ andȱ Cabela’s,ȱbutȱagreedȱthatȱthereȱcouldȱbeȱWDȬ40ȱproductsȱ inȱ thoseȱstoresȱifȱaȱdistributorȱprovidedȱthemȱtoȱtheȱstores.ȱȱ Bradyȱ Lamb,ȱ WDȬ40’sȱ brandȱ managerȱ forȱ theȱ Specialistȱ line,ȱ testifiedȱ thatȱ anȱ earlierȱ WDȬ40ȱ product,ȱ theȱ “3ȬInȬOneȱ Noȱ Rustȱ Shield”ȱ (sinceȱ discontinued)ȱ wasȱ advertisedȱ inȱ huntingȱ andȱ fishingȱ magazines,ȱ andȱ wasȱ promotedȱ atȱ theȱ Shooting,ȱHunting,ȱOutdoorȱTradeȱShowȱ(“SHOT”ȱshow)ȱinȱ 2010.ȱSorensenȱalsoȱclaimsȱthatȱWDȬ40ȱexhibitedȱthisȱproductȱ atȱ theȱ showȱ inȱ 2009,ȱ whenȱ Sorensenȱ promotedȱ hisȱ ownȱ productsȱthere,ȱthoughȱWDȬ40ȱdeniesȱthis.ȱWDȬ40ȱsaysȱitȱnoȱ longerȱtargetsȱhuntingȱandȱfishingȱenthusiasts.ȱ EricȱVanderȱWeitȱtestifiedȱthatȱheȱworkedȱforȱSorensenȱinȱ multipleȱ capacitiesȱ betweenȱ approximatelyȱ 1996ȱ andȱ 2001.ȱ Heȱ hasȱ maintainedȱ aȱ personalȱ relationshipȱ withȱ Sorensenȱ sinceȱ then.ȱ Onȱ Julyȱ 25,ȱ 2012,ȱ Sorensenȱ calledȱ Vanderȱ Weitȱ andȱ askedȱ himȱ toȱ goȱ toȱ Menardsȱ andȱ seeȱ ifȱ Vanderȱ Weitȱ couldȱ findȱ WDȬ40ȱ Specialistȱ products.ȱ Whenȱ askedȱ ifȱ heȱ thoughtȱ theȱ productsȱ wereȱ madeȱ byȱ Sorensenȱ theȱ firstȱ timeȱ heȱsawȱthem,ȱVanderȱWeitȱsaidȱheȱthoughtȱthatȱtheȱpresenceȱ ofȱ theȱ crosshairȱ indicatedȱ thatȱ Sorensenȱ “wasȱ doingȱ coȬ brandingȱ withȱ WDȬ40,”ȱ butȱ heȱ agreedȱ thatȱ theȱ products’ȱ brandȱwasȱclearlyȱWDȬ40.ȱ Sorensenȱ filedȱ thisȱ lawsuitȱ againstȱ WDȬ40,ȱ allegingȱ trademarkȱinfringementȱofȱhisȱTHEȱINHIBITORȱwordȱmark;ȱ falseȱ designationȱ ofȱ originȱ withȱ respectȱ toȱ WDȬ40’sȱ useȱ ofȱ aȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ 11 crosshairȱ mark,ȱ bothȱ standingȱ aloneȱ andȱ inȱ combinationȱ withȱtheȱwordȱ“inhibitor;”ȱandȱrelatedȱstateȱclaimsȱunderȱIlȬ linoisȱcommonȱlawȱandȱtheȱIllinoisȱUniformȱDeceptiveȱTradeȱ Practicesȱ Act,ȱ 815ȱ Ill.ȱ Comp.ȱ Stat.ȱ 501/1ȱ etȱ seq.ȱ Theȱ districtȱ courtȱ grantedȱ summaryȱ judgmentȱ inȱ favorȱ ofȱ WDȬ40ȱ onȱ allȱ counts.ȱ First,ȱ theȱ courtȱ heldȱ thatȱ WDȬ40’sȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ wordȱ “inhibitor”ȱonȱitsȱLongȬTermȱCorrosionȱInhibitorȱproductȱisȱ aȱ descriptiveȱ fairȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ term.ȱ Second,ȱ itȱ heldȱ thatȱ thereȱ wereȱ noȱ genuineȱ issuesȱ ofȱ materialȱ factȱ asȱ toȱ whetherȱ WDȬ 40’sȱ useȱ ofȱ itsȱ crosshairȱ markȱ isȱ confusinglyȱ similarȱ toȱ Sorensen’sȱ crosshairȱ mark.ȱ Finally,ȱ becauseȱ Sorensen’sȱ stateȱ claimsȱallȱrequireȱaȱlikelihoodȱofȱconfusion,ȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱ grantedȱ summaryȱ judgmentȱ toȱ WDȬ40ȱ onȱ thoseȱ claimsȱ asȱ well.ȱ II.ȱDiscussionȱ Weȱreviewȱaȱdistrictȱcourt’sȱgrantȱofȱsummaryȱjudgmentȱ deȱnovo.ȱTindleȱv.ȱPulteȱHomeȱCorp.,ȱ607ȱF.3dȱ494,ȱ495ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ 2010).ȱ Summaryȱ judgmentȱ isȱ appropriateȱ whenȱ theȱ pleadȬ ings,ȱdepositions,ȱanswersȱtoȱinterrogatories,ȱandȱadmissionsȱ onȱ file,ȱ togetherȱ withȱ anyȱ affidavits,ȱ showȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ genuineȱ issueȱ ofȱ materialȱ factȱ andȱ theȱ movantȱ isȱ entitledȱ toȱ judgmentȱ asȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ law.ȱ Fed.ȱ R.ȱ Civ.ȱ P.ȱ 56(a);ȱ Celotexȱ Corp.ȱv.ȱCatrett,ȱ477ȱU.S.ȱ317,ȱ322ȱ(1986).ȱInȱreviewingȱtheȱdisȬ trictȱcourt’sȱsummaryȱjudgmentȱorder,ȱweȱviewȱallȱfactsȱandȱ drawȱ allȱ inferencesȱ inȱ theȱ lightȱ mostȱ favorableȱ toȱ Sorensen.ȱ SeeȱBallȱv.ȱKotter,ȱ723ȱF.3dȱ813,ȱ821ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2013).ȱSummaryȱ judgmentȱwasȱappropriateȱif,ȱonȱtheȱevidenceȱpresented,ȱnoȱ reasonableȱ jurorȱ couldȱ returnȱ aȱ verdictȱ inȱ Sorensen’sȱ favor.ȱ Seeȱid.ȱ ȱ 12ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ A. Descriptiveȱfairȱuseȱ Theȱ districtȱ courtȱ foundȱ thatȱ noȱ reasonableȱ juryȱ couldȱ concludeȱthatȱWDȬ40ȱisȱliableȱforȱinfringingȱSorensen’sȱTHEȱ INHIBITORȱ wordȱ markȱ becauseȱ WDȬ40’sȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ wordȱ “inhibitor”ȱinȱtheȱnameȱofȱitsȱLongȬTermȱCorrosionȱInhibitorȱ isȱ aȱ descriptiveȱ fairȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ word.ȱ Underȱ 15ȱ U.S.C.ȱ §ȱ1115(b)(4),ȱaȱdefendantȱinȱaȱtrademarkȱinfringementȱactionȱ mayȱ invokeȱ theȱ fairȱ useȱ defenseȱ byȱ demonstratingȱ thatȱ theȱ allegedȱinfringementȱ“isȱaȱuse,ȱotherwiseȱthanȱasȱaȱmarkȱ…ȱ whichȱisȱdescriptiveȱofȱandȱusedȱfairlyȱandȱinȱgoodȱfaithȱonlyȱ toȱdescribeȱtheȱgoodsȱorȱservicesȱofȱsuchȱparty.”ȱThisȱdefenseȱ “isȱbasedȱonȱtheȱprincipleȱthatȱnoȱoneȱshouldȱbeȱableȱtoȱapȬ propriateȱ descriptiveȱ languageȱ throughȱ trademarkȱ registraȬ tion.”ȱPackmanȱv.ȱChi.ȱTribuneȱCo.,ȱ267ȱF.3dȱ628,ȱ639ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ 2001).ȱTheȱhypotheticalȱproducerȱofȱ“Crunchy”ȱbrandȱpotatoȱ chips,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ cannotȱ blockȱ itsȱ competitorsȱ fromȱ deȬ scribingȱ theirȱ chipsȱ asȱ crunchy.ȱ Itȱ may,ȱ though,ȱ beȱ ableȱ toȱ blockȱ itsȱ competitorsȱ fromȱ sellingȱ chipsȱ thatȱ areȱ brandedȱ “Crunchy.”ȱȱ Toȱprevailȱonȱaȱfairȱuseȱdefense,ȱaȱdefendantȱmustȱshowȱ that:ȱ(1)ȱitȱdidȱnotȱuseȱtheȱmarkȱasȱaȱtrademark;ȱ(2)ȱtheȱuseȱisȱ descriptiveȱofȱitsȱgoodsȱorȱservices;ȱandȱ(3)ȱitȱusedȱtheȱmarkȱ fairlyȱandȱinȱgoodȱfaith.ȱId.ȱTheȱfairȱuseȱdefenseȱisȱavailableȱ evenȱagainstȱfederallyȱregisteredȱtrademarksȱthatȱareȱinconȬ testable,ȱsuchȱasȱSorensen’sȱTHEȱINHIBITORȱmark.ȱSunmark,ȱ Inc.ȱ v.ȱ Oceanȱ Sprayȱ Cranberries,ȱ Inc.,ȱ 64ȱ F.3dȱ 1055,ȱ 1058ȱ (7thȱ Cir.ȱ1995).ȱ i.ȱNonȬtrademarkȱuseȱ “Aȱ wordȱ orȱ phraseȱ functionsȱ asȱ aȱ trademarkȱ whenȱ itȱ isȱ usedȱbyȱaȱsourceȱofȱaȱproductȱtoȱidentifyȱitselfȱtoȱtheȱpublicȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ 13 asȱtheȱsourceȱofȱitsȱproductȱandȱ toȱ createȱ inȱtheȱpublicȱ conȬ sciousnessȱanȱawarenessȱofȱtheȱuniquenessȱofȱtheȱsourceȱandȱ ofȱitsȱproducts.”ȱSands,ȱTaylorȱ&ȱWoodȱCo.ȱv.ȱQuakerȱOatsȱCo.,ȱ 978ȱ F.2dȱ 947,ȱ 953ȱ (7thȱ Cir.ȱ 1992)ȱ (internalȱ quotationȱ marksȱ omitted).ȱȱ Inȱfindingȱthatȱthereȱwasȱnoȱgenuineȱfactualȱdisputeȱthatȱ WDȬ40’sȱuseȱofȱ“inhibitor”ȱwasȱaȱnonȬtrademarkȱuse,ȱtheȱdisȬ trictȱ courtȱ reasonedȱ thatȱ theȱ wordȱ couldȱ notȱ functionȱ asȱ aȱ sourceȱindicatorȱbecauseȱtheȱLongȬTermȱCorrosionȱInhibitorȱ bottleȱ alsoȱ displaysȱ theȱ famousȱ WDȬ40ȱ shield,ȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ theȱ shieldȱthatȱservesȱasȱtheȱsourceȱindicatorȱforȱcustomers.ȱThatȱ reasoningȱisȱinȱsomeȱtensionȱwithȱourȱanalysisȱinȱSands,ȱTayȬ lorȱ &ȱ Woodȱ Co.ȱ There,ȱ theȱ defendant—theȱ producerȱ ofȱ GaȬ torade—arguedȱthatȱtheȱwordsȱ“ThirstȱAid”ȱcouldȱnotȱfuncȬ tionȱ asȱ aȱ trademarkȱ becauseȱ theyȱ wereȱ usedȱ inȱ conjunctionȱ withȱ theȱ wellȬknownȱ “Gatorade”ȱ mark.ȱ Id.ȱ Weȱ disagreed,ȱ notingȱthat,ȱinȱtheȱrelatedȱcontextȱofȱdeterminingȱlikelihoodȱ ofȱ confusion,ȱ “someȱ courtsȱ haveȱ observedȱ thatȱ theȱ conjuncȬ tionȱ ofȱ defendant’sȱ trademarkȱ andȱ theȱ allegedlyȱ infringedȱ termȱ‘mayȱactuallyȱincreaseȱtheȱmisappropriationȱbyȱlinkingȱ defendant’sȱnameȱtoȱplaintiff’sȱgoodwill.’”ȱId.ȱatȱ954ȱ(quotingȱ Banff,ȱLtd.ȱv.ȱFederatedȱDep’tȱStores,ȱInc.,ȱ841ȱF.2dȱ486,ȱ492ȱ(2dȱ Cir.ȱ 1988)).ȱ “Clearly,ȱ then,”ȱ weȱ held,ȱ “theȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ GaȬ toradeȱ trademarkȱ alwaysȱ appearsȱ inȱ Quaker’sȱ ‘Thirstȱ Aid’ȱ advertisementsȱdoesȱnotȱprecludeȱaȱfindingȱthatȱthoseȱadverȬ tisementsȱalsoȱuseȱ‘ThirstȱAid’ȱasȱaȱtrademark.”ȱId.ȱȱ Moreover,ȱ theȱ districtȱ court’sȱ reasoningȱ restedȱ onȱ theȱ premiseȱthatȱaȱgivenȱproductȱcanȱonlyȱcontainȱoneȱindicatorȱ ofȱ source.ȱ That,ȱ weȱ know,ȱ isȱ incorrect—WDȬ40’sȱ Specialistȱ productsȱ containȱ atȱ leastȱ threeȱ registeredȱ trademarks:ȱ theȱ WDȬ40ȱ shield,ȱ theȱ wordȱ markȱ “Specialist,”ȱ andȱ theȱ WDȬ40ȱ 14ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ crosshairȱ mark.ȱ Theȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ WDȬ40ȱ shieldȱ servesȱ asȱ aȱ sourceȱ indicator,ȱ therefore,ȱ doesȱ notȱ meanȱ thatȱ theȱ wordȱ “inhibitor”ȱ doesȱ notȱ alsoȱ serveȱ toȱ indicateȱ theȱ product’sȱ source.ȱ Theȱdistrictȱcourtȱsupportedȱitsȱconclusionȱinȱthreeȱotherȱ waysȱ thatȱ weȱ thinkȱ areȱ worthȱ mentioning.ȱ First,ȱ itȱ pointedȱ outȱthatȱWDȬ40ȱdidȱnotȱuseȱtheȱwordsȱ“theȱinhibitor”ȱonȱitsȱ product,ȱbutȱratherȱjustȱtheȱwordȱ“inhibitor.”ȱThisȱfact,ȱhowȬ ever,ȱ goesȱ toȱ whetherȱ Sorensen’sȱ trademarkȱ wasȱ infringed,ȱ notȱ whetherȱ WDȬ40ȱ usedȱ theȱ wordȱ asȱ aȱ mark.ȱ Hadȱ WDȬ40ȱ calledȱitsȱproductȱ“Inhibitor”ȱandȱplacedȱthatȱwordȱinȱlarge,ȱ boldȱlettersȱonȱitsȱcan,ȱweȱthinkȱitȱprobableȱthatȱaȱjuryȱwouldȱ findȱ thatȱ toȱ beȱ trademarkȱ use,ȱ despiteȱ theȱ lackȱ ofȱ theȱ wordȱ “the.”ȱWhetherȱthatȱtrademarkȱuseȱinfringedȱuponȱSorensen’sȱ markȱwouldȱbeȱaȱseparateȱquestion.ȱNext,ȱtheȱdistrictȱcourt,ȱ citingȱ toȱ McCarthyȱ onȱ Trademarks,ȱ notedȱ thatȱ thereȱ areȱ comȬ petingȱproductsȱonȱtheȱmarketȱthatȱalsoȱuseȱtheȱwordȱ“inhibȬ itor”ȱ toȱ describeȱ theirȱ products.ȱ But,ȱ asȱ McCarthyȱ makesȱ clear,ȱtheȱuseȱofȱaȱtermȱbyȱotherȱsellersȱofȱsimilarȱgoodsȱisȱanȱ indiciaȱofȱtheȱdescriptivenessȱofȱtheȱterm,ȱnotȱofȱitsȱbeingȱusedȱ inȱ aȱ nonȬtrademarkȱ manner.ȱ Seeȱ 2ȱ McCarthyȱ onȱ Trademarksȱ andȱ Unfairȱ Competitionȱ §ȱ11:20ȱ (4thȱ ed.).ȱ Inȱ Sands,ȱ Taylorȱ &ȱ Woodȱ Co.,ȱ weȱ cautionedȱ againstȱ conflatingȱ theseȱ twoȱ eleȬ mentsȱ ofȱ theȱ fairȱ useȱ defense.ȱ 978ȱ F.2dȱ atȱ 954.ȱ Descriptiveȱ terms,ȱ afterȱ all,ȱ areȱ protectableȱ asȱ aȱ trademarkȱ ifȱ theyȱ haveȱ developedȱ secondaryȱ meaning.ȱ Seeȱ id.ȱ Finally,ȱ theȱ districtȱ courtȱsaidȱthatȱtheȱfactȱthatȱWDȬ40ȱusesȱtheȱwordȱ“inhibitor”ȱ onȱonlyȱoneȱofȱitsȱSpecialistȱlineȱofȱproducts,ȱratherȱthanȱonȱ everyȱ productȱ inȱ theȱ line,ȱ isȱ anȱ indiciaȱ thatȱ theȱ wordȱ isȱ notȱ beingȱusedȱasȱaȱmark.ȱThatȱisȱpartiallyȱcorrect:ȱSorensen’sȱarȬ gumentȱwouldȱbeȱmuchȱstrongerȱifȱ“inhibitor”ȱappearedȱonȱ allȱ ofȱ theȱ productsȱ inȱ theȱ Specialistȱ line.ȱ However,ȱ aȱ markȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ 15 thatȱ isȱ usedȱ onȱ onlyȱ oneȱ productȱ withinȱ aȱ largerȱ lineȱ canȱ neverthelessȱbeȱaȱsourceȱindicator,ȱnotȱforȱtheȱwholeȱline,ȱbutȱ forȱthatȱproductȱinȱparticular.ȱForȱexample,ȱGatorade,ȱwhichȱ weȱmentionedȱabove,ȱhasȱaȱlineȱ ofȱ“GatoradeȱFrost”ȱenergyȱ drinks,ȱ inȱ fiveȱ differentȱ flavors.ȱ Theȱ namesȱ ofȱ twoȱ ofȱ thoseȱ flavors—“Glacierȱ Freeze”ȱ andȱ “Glacierȱ Cherry”—areȱ regisȬ teredȱasȱseparateȱtrademarks.ȱSeeȱGLACIERȱFREEZE,ȱRegisȬ trationȱ No.ȱ 2,098,324;ȱ GLACIERȱ CHERRY,ȱ Registrationȱ No.ȱ 4,401,610.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ weȱ agreeȱ withȱ theȱ districtȱ court’sȱ ultimateȱ conclusionȱ thatȱ WDȬ40’sȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ wordȱ “inhibitor”ȱ isȱ aȱ nonȬtrademarkȱuse.ȱSimplyȱput,ȱweȱbelieveȱthatȱnoȱreasonaȬ bleȱjurorȱlookingȱatȱaȱbottleȱofȱLongȬTermȱCorrosionȱInhibiȬ torȱ couldȱ concludeȱ thatȱ theȱ wordȱ isȱ usedȱ asȱ anȱ indicatorȱ ofȱ source.ȱComparedȱtoȱotherȱfeaturesȱinȱtheȱbottle’sȱdesign,ȱtheȱ wordȱ“inhibitor”ȱisȱmuchȱlessȱprominentȱorȱnoticeable.ȱItȱisȱ muchȱ smallerȱ thanȱ theȱ brightȱ andȱ eyeȬcatchingȱ WDȬ40ȱ shield.ȱItȱisȱalsoȱsmallerȱthanȱtheȱstylizedȱandȱcoloredȱwordȱ “Specialist”ȱ andȱ theȱ colorfulȱ crosshairȱ mark.ȱ Finally,ȱ theȱ wordȱ“inhibitor”—whichȱisȱwrittenȱinȱrelativelyȱsmall,ȱwhiteȱ type—isȱlessȱattentionȬgrabbingȱthanȱevenȱtheȱwordȱ“CorroȬ sion,”ȱ whichȱ isȱ largerȱ andȱ coloredȱ inȱ orange.ȱ Dueȱ toȱ theȱ word’sȱsmallȱsize,ȱplainȱcolor,ȱandȱnonȬprivilegedȱplacementȱ onȱ theȱ bottle,ȱ weȱ findȱ thatȱ “inhibitor”ȱ isȱ notȱ anȱ “attentionȬ gettingȱsymbol,”ȱandȱdoesȱnotȱfunctionȱasȱaȱsourceȱindicator.ȱ Seeȱ Sands,ȱ Taylorȱ &ȱ Woodȱ Co.,ȱ 978ȱ F.2dȱ atȱ 954ȱ (quotingȱ 1ȱ McCarthy,ȱsupraȱ§ȱ11:17,ȱatȱ476ȱ(1991ȱSupp.)).ȱ Sorensenȱ arguesȱ inȱ responseȱ thatȱ WDȬ40’sȱ communicaȬ tionsȱguideȱrequiresȱthatȱemployeesȱandȱadvertisementsȱonlyȱ referȱtoȱtheȱproductȱatȱissueȱasȱ“WDȬ40ȱSpecialistȱLongȬTermȱ Corrosionȱ Inhibitor;”ȱ noȱ shorterȱ nameȱ isȱ acceptable.ȱ Weȱ doȱ 16ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ notȱ agreeȱ withȱ Sorensenȱ thatȱ thisȱ factȱ isȱ relevant.ȱ Heȱ seemsȱ toȱ suggestȱ that,ȱ becauseȱ theȱ wordȱ “inhibitor”ȱ mustȱ beȱ inȬ cludedȱwheneverȱWDȬ40ȱmentionsȱtheȱproduct,ȱitȱmustȱbeȱaȱ trademark.ȱ Butȱ thoughȱ theȱ guideline’sȱ requirementȱ thatȱ theȱ fullȱnameȱbeȱusedȱmayȱsuggestȱthatȱtheȱnameȱasȱaȱwholeȱisȱanȱ indicatorȱ ofȱ source,ȱ itȱ doesȱ notȱ meanȱ thatȱ eachȱ individualȱ wordȱinȱtheȱnameȱservesȱasȱaȱmark.ȱWeȱdoubtȱthatȱSorensenȱ wouldȱ argueȱ thatȱ theȱ wordȱ “term”ȱ isȱ aȱ trademarkȱ forȱ WDȬ 40’sȱproduct.ȱȱ ii.ȱDescriptiveȱofȱtheȱproductȱ Aȱdescriptiveȱtermȱordinarilyȱ namesȱaȱcharacteristicȱofȱaȱ productȱ orȱ service.ȱ HȬDȱ Mich.,ȱ Inc.ȱ v.ȱ Topȱ Qualityȱ Serv.,ȱ Inc.,ȱ 496ȱ F.3dȱ 755,ȱ 759ȱ (7thȱ Cir.ȱ 2007).ȱ Thereȱ canȱ beȱ noȱ disputeȱ hereȱ thatȱ theȱ wordȱ “inhibitor,”ȱ followingȱ theȱ wordȱ “corroȬ sion,”ȱ describesȱ aȱ characteristicȱ ofȱ WDȬ40’sȱ product,ȱ whichȱ containsȱVCIȱandȱisȱmeantȱtoȱinhibitȱcorrosionȱforȱaȱlongȱpeȬ riodȱ ofȱ time.ȱ Multipleȱ competingȱ productsȱ madeȱ byȱ thirdȱ partiesȱ useȱ theȱ wordȱ “inhibitor”ȱ toȱ describeȱ theirȱ products,ȱ andȱ WDȬ40ȱ usesȱ theȱ wordȱ multipleȱ timesȱ onȱ itsȱ bottleȱ inȱ aȱ mannerȱthatȱisȱclearlyȱnonȬsourceȱidentifying.ȱȱ Sorensenȱ offersȱ littleȱ resistanceȱ toȱ thisȱ aspectȱ ofȱ theȱ disȬ trictȱ court’sȱ opinion,ȱ thoughȱ heȱ doesȱ argueȱ thatȱ theȱ wordȱ “inhibitor”ȱ isȱ suggestiveȱ ratherȱ thanȱ merelyȱ descriptiveȱ beȬ causeȱ itȱ requiresȱ “someȱ operationȱ ofȱ theȱ imagination”ȱ toȱ makeȱtheȱconnectionȱbetweenȱtheȱtermȱ“inhibitor”ȱandȱaȱrustȱ preventativeȱ oilȱ product.ȱ G.ȱ Heilemanȱ Brewingȱ Co.ȱ v.ȱ AnȬ heuserȬBusch,ȱInc.,ȱ873ȱ F.2dȱ985,ȱ996ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ1989).ȱWeȱdisaȬ gree,ȱ but,ȱ regardless,ȱ thisȱ framingȱ ofȱ theȱ issueȱ isȱ incorrect.ȱ TheȱWDȬ40ȱproductȱisȱcalledȱaȱ“CorrosionȱInhibitor,”ȱnotȱjustȱ anȱ “Inhibitor.”ȱ Itȱ takesȱ noȱ operationȱ ofȱ theȱ imaginationȱ toȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ 17 makeȱ aȱ connectionȱ betweenȱ theȱ termȱ “Corrosionȱ Inhibitor”ȱ andȱaȱproductȱthatȱinhibitsȱrustȱandȱotherȱformsȱofȱcorrosion.ȱȱ SorensenȱpointsȱtoȱtheȱcaseȱFortuneȱDynamic,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱVictoȬ ria’sȱ Secret,ȱ 618ȱ F.3dȱ 1025,ȱ 1035ȱ (9thȱ Cir.ȱ 2010),ȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ NinthȱCircuitȱheldȱthatȱaȱjury—andȱnotȱaȱjudgeȱonȱsummaryȱ judgment—shouldȱ decideȱ whetherȱ theȱ trademarkedȱ termȱ DELICIOUSȱ wasȱ beingȱ usedȱ inȱ aȱ descriptiveȱ sense.ȱ “DeliȬ cious,”ȱofȱcourse—likeȱ“inhibitor”—seemsȱlikeȱanȱinherentlyȱ descriptiveȱ word,ȱ whichȱ wouldȱ seemȱ toȱ makeȱ forȱ anȱ easyȱ caseȱforȱtheȱjudgeȱonȱsummaryȱjudgment.ȱButȱtheȱkeyȱtoȱForȬ tuneȱ Dynamicȱ wasȱ thatȱ theȱ wordȱ “Delicious”ȱ wasȱ aȱ tradeȬ markȱforȱwomen’sȱshoes,ȱandȱnotȱforȱaȱfoodȱorȱbeverage.ȱId.ȱ atȱ1029.ȱWhetherȱorȱnotȱaȱtermȱisȱdescriptiveȱdependsȱnotȱonȬ lyȱ onȱ theȱ termȱ itself,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ onȱ theȱ productȱ forȱ whichȱ itȱ servesȱ asȱ aȱ sourceȱ indicator.ȱ “Corrosionȱ Inhibitor,”ȱ forȱ exȬ ample,ȱ isȱ clearlyȱ descriptiveȱ ofȱ WDȬ40’sȱ VCIȱ spray;ȱ ifȱ itȱ apȬ pearedȱ onȱaȱtȬshirt,ȱthough,ȱourȱconclusionȱ veryȱwellȱmightȱ beȱdifferent.ȱ iii.ȱBadȱfaithȱ Finally,ȱ theȱ proponentȱ ofȱ aȱ fairȱ useȱ defenseȱ mustȱ showȱ thatȱ itȱ usedȱ theȱ plaintiff’sȱ markȱ fairlyȱ andȱ inȱ goodȱ faith.ȱ Sorensen’sȱprimaryȱ argumentȱ regardingȱ thisȱ elementȱ isȱ thatȱ theȱevidenceȱshowsȱthatȱWDȬ40ȱhadȱknowledgeȱofȱSorensen,ȱ hisȱ products,ȱ andȱ hisȱ THEȱ INHIBITORȱ wordȱ markȱ whenȱ itȱ decidedȱ uponȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ itsȱ LongȬTermȱ Corrosionȱ InhibiȬ tor.ȱGivenȱthatȱWDȬ40ȱhadȱthisȱknowledge,ȱSorensenȱargues,ȱ aȱjuryȱcouldȱinferȱthatȱWDȬ40ȱincludedȱtheȱwordȱ“inhibitor”ȱ inȱaȱbadȬfaithȱattemptȱtoȱsiphonȱoffȱbusinessȱfromȱSorensen.ȱ Theȱ districtȱ courtȱ concludedȱ thatȱ thereȱ wasȱ noȱ evidenceȱ thatȱWDȬ40ȱhadȱknowledgeȱofȱSorensen’sȱproductȱandȱwordȱ 18ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ mark,ȱbutȱweȱdisagree.ȱThereȱareȱmultipleȱdocumentsȱinȱtheȱ recordȱwhichȱwereȱinȱWDȬ40’sȱpossessionȱandȱwhichȱspecifiȬ callyȱreferenceȱSorensenȱandȱhisȱmark.ȱTheȱdistrictȱcourtȱdisȬ countedȱtheȱrelevanceȱofȱtheseȱdocuments,ȱfindingȱthatȱthereȱ isȱ noȱ evidenceȱ thatȱ WDȬ40’sȱ marketingȱ department,ȱ theȱ entityȱ thatȱ decidedȱ uponȱ theȱ nameȱ “LongȬTermȱ Corrosionȱ InhibiȬ tor,”ȱwasȱprovidedȱwithȱtheseȱdocumentsȱorȱhadȱanyȱawareȬ nessȱ ofȱ Sorensen’sȱ mark.ȱ Manyȱ peopleȱ atȱ theȱ company,ȱ though,ȱ clearlyȱ didȱ haveȱ thisȱ information,ȱ andȱ aȱ juryȱ couldȱ reasonablyȱ inferȱthatȱ theȱmarketingȱdepartment—orȱatȱleastȱ someoneȱ withȱ finalȱ decisionȬmakingȱ authority—hadȱ thisȱ knowledgeȱasȱwell.ȱȱ WDȬ40’sȱmereȱknowledgeȱofȱSorensen’sȱmark,ȱhowever,ȱisȱ insufficientȱtoȱestablishȱthatȱWDȬ40ȱactedȱinȱbadȱfaith.ȱPackȬ man,ȱ267ȱF.3dȱatȱ642.ȱToȱsurviveȱsummaryȱjudgment,ȱaȱplainȬ tiffȱ mustȱ pointȱ toȱ somethingȱ moreȱ thatȱ suggestsȱ subjectiveȱ badȱfaith;ȱSorensenȱhasȱnotȱdoneȱsoȱhere.ȱSeeȱid.ȱAllȱSorensenȱ canȱpointȱtoȱisȱtheȱfactȱthatȱWDȬ40ȱconductedȱnoȱtrademarkȱ searchȱpriorȱtoȱusingȱtheȱwordȱ“inhibitor”ȱonȱitsȱproduct.ȱAȱ failureȱtoȱinvestigateȱcan,ȱinȱsomeȱcircumstances,ȱsupportȱanȱ inferenceȱofȱbadȱfaith.ȱSeeȱFortuneȱDynamic,ȱ618ȱF.3dȱatȱ1043.ȱ Inȱthisȱcase,ȱhowever,ȱthisȱfactȱcannotȱhelpȱSorensenȱsurviveȱ summaryȱ judgment.ȱ First,ȱ ifȱ WDȬ40ȱ believed—correctly,ȱ asȱ weȱhaveȱconcluded—thatȱitȱwasȱnotȱusingȱtheȱwordȱ“inhibiȬ tor”ȱasȱaȱtrademark,ȱitȱhadȱnoȱreasonȱtoȱconductȱaȱtrademarkȱ search.ȱ Second,ȱ andȱ moreȱ fundamentally,ȱ Sorensen’sȱ comȬ plaintȱthatȱWDȬ40ȱfailedȱtoȱundertakeȱaȱtrademarkȱsearchȱisȱ inconsistentȱ withȱ hisȱ theoryȱ thatȱ WDȬ40ȱ knewȱ aboutȱ hisȱ mark,ȱ andȱ decidedȱ toȱ copyȱ itȱ anyway.ȱ Becauseȱ WDȬ40ȱ alȬ readyȱ knewȱ thatȱ Sorensenȱ ownedȱ aȱ trademarkȱ forȱ THEȱ INHIBITOR,ȱaȱtrademarkȱsearchȱwouldȱhaveȱbeenȱuseless.ȱȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ 19 Otherȱ thanȱ pointingȱ toȱ WDȬ40’sȱ mereȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ Sorensen’sȱmark,ȱSorensenȱhasȱidentifiedȱnoȱevidenceȱthatȱitȱ actedȱ inȱ subjectiveȱ badȱ faith.ȱ Becauseȱ WDȬ40’sȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ wordȱ“inhibitor”ȱwasȱalsoȱaȱnonȬtrademark,ȱdescriptiveȱuse,ȱ weȱ thereforeȱ agreeȱ withȱ theȱ districtȱ court’sȱ conclusionȱ thatȱ WDȬ40ȱ isȱ entitledȱ toȱ summaryȱ judgmentȱ onȱ itsȱ fairȱ useȱ deȬ fenseȱwithȱregardȱtoȱSorensen’sȱwordȱmarkȱclaims.ȱ B. Likelihoodȱofȱconfusionȱ Havingȱ concludedȱ thatȱ Sorensen’sȱ claimsȱ regardingȱ hisȱ wordȱmarkȱareȱbarredȱbyȱtheȱdescriptiveȱfairȱuseȱdefense,ȱweȱ areȱleftȱwithȱhisȱclaimȱthatȱWDȬ40’sȱuseȱofȱaȱcrosshairȱlogoȱonȱ itsȱ Specialistȱ productsȱ infringesȱ uponȱ Sorensen’sȱ commonȱ lawȱ crosshairȱ trademark.2ȱ Theȱ districtȱ courtȱ grantedȱ sumȬ maryȱ judgmentȱ toȱ WDȬ40ȱ onȱ theseȱ claims,ȱ findingȱ thatȱ noȱ reasonableȱjuryȱcouldȱfindȱaȱlikelihoodȱofȱconfusion.ȱȱ “Theȱ ‘keystone’ȱofȱ trademarkȱinfringementȱ isȱ‘likelihoodȱ ofȱconfusion’ȱasȱtoȱsource,ȱaffiliation,ȱconnectionȱorȱsponsorȬ shipȱ ofȱ goodsȱ orȱ servicesȱ amongȱ theȱ relevantȱ classȱ ofȱ cusȬ tomersȱ andȱ potentialȱ customers.”ȱ Sands,ȱ Taylorȱ &ȱ Woodȱ Co.,ȱ 978ȱ F.2dȱ atȱ 957.ȱ “Toȱ decideȱ whetherȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ likelihoodȱ ofȱ confusionȱ…ȱaȱcourtȱmustȱaskȱwhetherȱconsumers,ȱandȱspeȬ cificallyȱconsumersȱwhoȱwouldȱuseȱeitherȱproduct,ȱwouldȱbeȱ likelyȱ toȱ attributeȱ themȱ toȱ aȱ singleȱ source.”ȱ Bd.ȱ ofȱ Regentsȱ ofȱ Univ.ȱofȱWis.ȱSys.ȱv.ȱPhx.ȱInt’lȱSoftware,ȱInc.,ȱ653ȱF.3dȱ448,ȱ455ȱ (7thȱCir.ȱ2011).ȱPossibleȱconfusionȱisȱnotȱenough;ȱrather,ȱconȬ fusionȱ mustȱ beȱ “probable.”ȱ 4ȱ McCarthy,ȱ supraȱ §ȱ23:3.ȱ LikeliȬ hoodȱofȱconfusionȱisȱaȱquestionȱofȱfact,ȱusuallyȱreservedȱforȱ theȱjury.ȱBd.ȱofȱRegents,ȱ653ȱF.3dȱatȱ452.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 2ȱ Forȱ theȱ purposesȱ ofȱ thisȱ analysis,ȱ weȱ assumeȱ withoutȱ decidingȱ thatȱ Sorensen’sȱcrosshairȱmarkȱisȱvalidȱandȱprotectable.ȱȱ 20ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ Thisȱcircuitȱusesȱtheȱfollowingȱsevenȱfactorsȱtoȱdetermineȱ theȱ likelihoodȱ ofȱ confusion:ȱ (1)ȱ theȱ similarityȱ betweenȱ theȱ marksȱinȱappearanceȱandȱsuggestion;ȱ(2)ȱtheȱsimilarityȱofȱtheȱ products;ȱ (3)ȱ theȱ areaȱ andȱ mannerȱ ofȱ consistentȱ use;ȱ (4)ȱ theȱ degreeȱ ofȱ careȱ likelyȱ toȱ beȱ exercisedȱ byȱ consumers;ȱ (5)ȱ theȱ strengthȱ ofȱ theȱ plaintiff’sȱ mark;ȱ (6)ȱ anyȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ actualȱ confusion;ȱandȱ(7)ȱtheȱintentȱofȱtheȱdefendantȱtoȱ“palmȱoff”ȱ hisȱproductȱasȱthatȱofȱanother.ȱId.ȱatȱ454.ȱNoȱsingleȱfactorȱisȱ dispositive,ȱ butȱ weȱ haveȱ saidȱ thatȱ threeȱ areȱ especiallyȱ imȬ portant:ȱtheȱsimilarityȱofȱtheȱmarks,ȱtheȱintentȱofȱtheȱdefendȬ ant,ȱ andȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ actualȱ confusion.ȱ Ty,ȱ Inc.ȱ v.ȱ Jonesȱ Grp.,ȱ Inc.,ȱ 237ȱ F.3dȱ 891,ȱ 898ȱ (7thȱ Cir.ȱ 2001).ȱ Aȱ courtȱ mayȱ grantȱ summaryȱjudgmentȱevenȱifȱthereȱisȱaȱgenuineȱissueȱofȱmateȬ rialȱfactȱasȱtoȱoneȱorȱmoreȱofȱtheȱsevenȱfactors,ȱasȱlongȱasȱnoȱ reasonableȱ jury,ȱ lookingȱ atȱ theȱ sevenȱ factorsȱ asȱ aȱ whole,ȱ couldȱ concludeȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ likelihoodȱ ofȱ confusion.ȱ AHPȱ SubsidiaryȱHoldingȱCo.ȱv.ȱStuartȱHaleȱCo.,ȱ1ȱF.3dȱ611,ȱ616ȱ(7thȱ Cir.ȱ1993).ȱ i.ȱSimilarityȱbetweenȱtheȱmarksȱ “Toȱ determineȱ whetherȱ twoȱ marksȱ areȱ similar,ȱ weȱ viewȱ theȱmarksȱasȱaȱwhole.”ȱAutoZone,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱStrick,ȱ543ȱF.3dȱ923,ȱ 929ȱ (7thȱ Cir.ȱ 2008).ȱ Importantȱ toȱ thisȱ case,ȱ “[w]eȱ mustȱ comȬ pareȱtheȱmarksȱinȱlightȱofȱwhatȱhappensȱinȱtheȱmarketplaceȱ andȱ notȱ merelyȱ byȱ lookingȱ atȱ theȱ twoȱ marksȱ sideȬbyȬside.”ȱ Id.ȱatȱ930ȱ(internalȱquotationȱmarksȱomitted).ȱ“Theȱtestȱisȱnotȱ whetherȱ theȱ publicȱ wouldȱ confuseȱ theȱ marks,ȱ butȱ whetherȱ theȱ viewerȱ ofȱ anȱ accusedȱ markȱ wouldȱ beȱ likelyȱ toȱ associateȱ theȱ productȱ orȱ serviceȱ withȱ whichȱ itȱ isȱ connectedȱ withȱ theȱ sourceȱofȱproductsȱorȱservicesȱwithȱwhichȱanȱearlierȱmarkȱisȱ connected.”ȱId.ȱ(quotingȱJamesȱBurroughȱLtd.ȱv.ȱSignȱofȱBeefeatȬ er,ȱ Inc.,ȱ 540ȱ F.2dȱ 266,ȱ 275ȱ (7thȱ Cir.ȱ 1976)).ȱ “[C]omparisonȱ ofȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ 21 theȱlabelsȱratherȱthanȱsimplyȱtheȱtrademarksȱisȱappropriate.”ȱ Henri’sȱFoodȱProds.ȱCo.,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱKraft,ȱInc.,ȱ717ȱF.2dȱ352,ȱ355ȱ(7thȱ Cir.ȱ 1983)ȱ (emphasisȱ added).ȱ “Theȱ courtȱ shouldȱ thereforeȱ considerȱ whetherȱ theȱ customerȱ wouldȱ believeȱ thatȱ theȱ trademarkȱownerȱsponsored,ȱendorsed,ȱorȱwasȱotherwiseȱafȬ filiatedȱwithȱtheȱproduct.”ȱAutoZone,ȱ543ȱF.3dȱatȱ930ȱ(citationȱ andȱinternalȱquotationȱmarksȱomitted).ȱȱ Theȱcentralȱdisputeȱregardingȱthisȱfactorȱisȱdemonstratedȱ byȱ theȱ differingȱ setsȱ ofȱ picturesȱ presentedȱ inȱ theȱ parties’ȱ briefs.ȱInȱSorensen’sȱbrief,ȱheȱshowsȱzoomedȬinȱsideȬbyȬsideȱ picturesȱofȱhisȱcrosshairȱandȱtheȱburntȱorangeȱversionȱofȱtheȱ WDȬ40ȱcrosshair.ȱFromȱthatȱperspective,ȱthereȱareȱsomeȱbasicȱ similaritiesȱbetweenȱtheȱmarks—theyȱareȱbothȱorangeȱwithȱaȱ blackȱ borderȱ andȱ withȱ variousȱ symbolsȱ inȱ theȱ quadrantsȱ ofȱ eachȱcrosshair.ȱȱ Butȱtheȱsimilarityȱofȱtheȱmarksȱanalysisȱdoesȱnotȱfocusȱonȱ theȱappearanceȱofȱtheȱtrademarksȱinȱisolation;ȱrather,ȱitȱlooksȱ atȱ theȱ labellingȱ asȱ aȱ whole.ȱ Theȱ picturesȱ foundȱ inȱ WDȬ40’sȱ briefȱ andȱ theȱ districtȱ courtȱ opinion,ȱ whichȱ showȱ theȱ entireȱ labelsȱofȱtheȱproducts,ȱareȱthereforeȱmuchȱmoreȱrelevant.ȱWeȱ agreeȱ withȱ theȱ districtȱ courtȱ thatȱ consumersȱ lookingȱ atȱ theȱ entiretyȱ ofȱ theȱ WDȬ40ȱ labelsȱ wouldȱ notȱ thinkȱ thatȱ theȱ SpeȬ cialistȱ productsȱ comeȱ fromȱ theȱ sameȱ sourceȱ asȱ Sorensen’sȱ THEȱ INHIBITORȱ lineȱ ofȱ products.ȱ Theȱ WDȬ40ȱ bottlesȱ areȱ primarilyȱblackȱandȱsilver,ȱwithȱaȱlargeȱyellowȱWDȬ40ȱshieldȱ andȱaȱbrightȱyellowȱcap.ȱTheȱpackagingȱofȱSorensen’sȱprodȬ ucts,ȱ inȱ contrast,ȱ isȱ primarilyȱ orange,ȱ yellowȬorange,ȱ andȱ black.ȱEvenȱtheȱappearanceȱofȱtheȱparties’ȱcrosshairsȱisȱquiteȱ different.ȱ WDȬ40’sȱ silverȱ andȱ burntȱ orangeȱ crosshair,ȱ withȱ silverȱsymbolsȱshadedȱtoȱshowȱdepth,ȱcreatesȱaȱdifferentȱimȬ pressionȱ thanȱ Sorensen’sȱ brightȱ orangeȬandȬblackȱ crosshair,ȱ 22ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ whichȱ featuresȱ twoȬdimensionalȱ symbolsȱ thatȱ areȱ silhouȬ ettes.ȱ Theȱ relativeȱ sizeȱ ofȱ theȱ crosshairsȱ onȱ theȱ labelsȱ isȱ difȬ ferent,ȱ asȱ isȱ theirȱ placement—onȱ theȱ fewȱ “Theȱ Inhibitor”ȱ productsȱ whichȱ containȱ Sorensen’sȱ crosshair,ȱ itȱ mostȱ comȬ monlyȱ appearsȱ asȱ theȱ “O”ȱ inȱ “Inhibitor,”ȱ notȱ asȱ aȱ freeȬ standingȱmarkȱnearȱtheȱbottomȱofȱtheȱbottle,ȱlikeȱonȱtheȱSpeȬ cialistȱproducts.ȱSimplyȱput,ȱtheȱoverallȱcommercialȱimpresȬ sionȱofȱtheȱtwoȱbottlesȱisȱquiteȱdistinct.ȱ Weȱ haveȱ alsoȱ previouslyȱ statedȱ thatȱ theȱ prominentȱ disȬ playȱofȱaȱwellȬknownȱtrademark—suchȱasȱWDȬ40’sȱshield— alongȱ withȱ anȱ allegedlyȱ infringingȱ markȱ isȱ aȱ strongȱ indicaȬ tionȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ likelihoodȱ ofȱ confusion.ȱ Packman,ȱ 267ȱ F.3dȱatȱ645.ȱSorensenȱarguesȱthatȱsuchȱaȱpresumptionȱshouldȱ notȱexist.ȱFirst,ȱheȱcontendsȱthatȱthisȱpresumptionȱessentiallyȱ givesȱ companiesȱ withȱ strongȱ marksȱ carteȱ blancheȱ toȱ infringeȱ onȱweakerȱseniorȱuser’sȱmarks.3ȱTrademarkȱlaw,ȱthough,ȱexȬ istsȱprimarilyȱtoȱprotectȱconsumers,ȱnotȱonlyȱtheȱholderȱofȱtheȱ trademark.ȱSee,ȱe.g.,ȱHenri’sȱFoodȱProds.,ȱ717ȱF.2dȱatȱ365ȱ(“InȬ deedȱtheȱunderlyingȱpurposeȱofȱtrademarkȱlawȱisȱtoȱpreventȱ confusion.”).ȱ Ifȱ theȱ holderȱ ofȱ aȱ strongȱ markȱ suchȱ asȱ WDȬ40ȱ putsȱ itsȱ markȱonȱ oneȱ ofȱitsȱ products,ȱ consumersȱwillȱnotȱbeȱ confused—theyȱ willȱ correctlyȱ surmiseȱ theȱ sourceȱ ofȱ theȱ product.ȱ Moreover,ȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ remedyȱ forȱ theȱ evilȱ thatȱ Sorensenȱ identifies—aȱ reverseȱ confusionȱ claim,ȱ whichȱ Sorensenȱhasȱnotȱmadeȱhere.ȱSeeȱCustomȱVehicles,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱForestȱ River,ȱ Inc.,ȱ 476ȱ F.3dȱ 481,ȱ 484ȱ (7thȱ Cir.ȱ 2007)ȱ (explainingȱ theȱ conceptȱofȱreverseȱconfusion,ȱinȱwhichȱ“aȱjuniorȱusesȱitsȱsizeȱ andȱmarketȱpenetrationȱtoȱoverwhelmȱtheȱsenior,ȱbutȱsmallȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 3ȱ Theȱ “seniorȱ user”ȱ ofȱ aȱ markȱ isȱ theȱ firstȱ entityȱ toȱ useȱ theȱ mark—here,ȱ Sorensen.ȱTheȱ“juniorȱuser”ȱisȱaȱsubsequentȱuserȱofȱtheȱmark—here,ȱalȬ legedly,ȱWDȬ40.ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ 23 er,ȱuser,”ȱandȱwhichȱexistsȱtoȱ“protect[]ȱtheȱseniorȱuser’sȱconȬ trolȱofȱitsȱmarkȱandȱtheȱgoodwillȱcreatedȱbyȱtheȱmarkȱfromȱaȱ juniorȱuser’sȱemploymentȱofȱtheȱmark,ȱandȱprotectsȱtheȱpubȬ licȱ fromȱ beingȱ deceivedȱ intoȱ believingȱ thatȱ theȱ seniorȱ user’sȱ productȱ emanatesȱ from,ȱ isȱ connectedȱ to,ȱ orȱ isȱ sponsoredȱ byȱ theȱjuniorȱuser”).ȱ Second,ȱ Sorensenȱ arguesȱ that,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ consumersȱ willȱ knowȱthatȱWDȬ40ȱisȱaȱsourceȱofȱtheȱSpecialistȱproducts,ȱWDȬ 40’sȱ useȱ ofȱ Sorensen’sȱ markȱ willȱ confuseȱ consumersȱ intoȱ thinkingȱ thatȱ hisȱ companyȱ isȱ alsoȱ aȱ source—inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ thatȱtheȱcompaniesȱworkedȱtogetherȱtoȱcoȬproduceȱtheȱprodȬ uct.ȱByȱfoolingȱconsumersȱinȱthisȱway,ȱWDȬ40ȱcouldȱimpropȬ erlyȱ benefitȱ fromȱ Sorensen’sȱ goodwill,ȱ andȱ consumersȱ mayȱ beȱharmedȱifȱtheyȱseeȱSorensen’sȱcrosshairȱmarkȱasȱanȱindicaȬ torȱofȱqualityȱbutȱaccidentallyȱpurchaseȱaȱSpecialistȱproductȱ instead.ȱSorensenȱpointsȱtoȱourȱcaseȱInternationalȱKennelȱClubȱ ofȱChicago.,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱMightyȱStar,ȱInc.,ȱinȱwhichȱweȱendorsedȱtheȱ propositionȱ thatȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ aȱ juniorȱ user’sȱ houseȱ markȱ mightȱnotȱalwaysȱpreventȱaȱconsumerȱfromȱ“mistakenlyȱasȬ sumingȱ thatȱ [aȱ seniorȱ user]ȱ isȱ somehowȱ associatedȱ withȱ [aȱ juniorȱ user]ȱ orȱ hasȱ consentedȱ toȱ theȱ mark’sȱ use.”ȱ 846ȱ F.2dȱ 1079,ȱ1088ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ1988)ȱ(quotingȱLoisȱSportswearȱU.S.A.,ȱInc.ȱ v.ȱLeviȱStraussȱ&ȱCo.,ȱ799ȱF.2dȱ867,ȱ876ȱ(2dȱCir.ȱ1986)).ȱInȱthatȱ case,ȱ however,ȱ theȱ seniorȱ user’sȱ markȱ wasȱ muchȱ strongerȱ thanȱ theȱ juniorȱ user’s,ȱ lendingȱ credibilityȱ toȱ theȱ theoryȱ thatȱ theȱ juniorȱ userȱ wasȱ tryingȱ toȱ feedȱ offȱ ofȱ theȱ seniorȱ user’sȱ goodwill.ȱȱ Inȱ contrast,ȱ weȱ haveȱ consideredȱ multipleȱ casesȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱpresenceȱofȱtheȱjuniorȱuser’sȱfamousȱmarkȱhasȱbeenȱsuffiȬ cientȱ toȱ dispelȱ confusion.ȱ Inȱ Packman,ȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ theȱ ChicagoȱTribuneȱmarkȱonȱeachȱpageȱofȱaȱnewspaperȱeditionȱ 24ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ whichȱusedȱplaintiff’sȱ“JoyȱofȱSix”ȱmarkȱdispelledȱconsumerȱ confusion.ȱ267ȱ F.3dȱatȱ645.ȱAnd,ȱ inȱ G.ȱHeilemanȱ Brewingȱ Co.,ȱ weȱ heldȱ thatȱ theȱ defendant’sȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ strongȱ AnheuserȬ Buschȱ markȱ inȱ juxtapositionȱ withȱ aȱ “categoryȱ descriptor”ȱ mark—“LA,”ȱ meaningȱ “lowȱ alcohol”—dispelledȱ anyȱ likeliȬ hoodȱofȱconfusion.ȱ873ȱF.2dȱatȱ1000.ȱ Theȱ lessonȱ ofȱ theseȱ casesȱ isȱ thatȱ althoughȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ anȱ especiallyȱ strongȱ houseȱ markȱ canȱ greatlyȱ lessenȱ theȱ likeliȬ hoodȱofȱconfusion,ȱitȱmayȱnotȱwhollyȱeliminateȱtheȱpossibilȬ ityȱ thatȱ consumersȱ willȱ believeȱ aȱ productȱ toȱ beȱ crossȬ branded.ȱ Inȱ determiningȱ theȱ extentȱ ofȱ thisȱ possibleȱ confuȬ sion,ȱ weȱ mustȱ makeȱ twoȱ comparisons.ȱ First,ȱ weȱ mustȱ comȬ pareȱtheȱstrengthȱofȱtheȱjuniorȱuser’sȱhouseȱmarkȱtoȱtheȱsenȬ iorȱ user’sȱ markȱ thatȱ isȱ allegedlyȱ beingȱ appropriated.ȱAȱ conȬ sumerȱ isȱ moreȱ likelyȱ toȱ thinkȱ ofȱ crossȬbrandingȱ whereȱ theȱ seniorȱ markȱ isȱ wellȱ known;ȱ afterȱ all,ȱ ifȱ theȱ consumerȱ hasȱ neverȱheardȱofȱtheȱseniorȱuser,ȱcrossȬbrandingȱwillȱnotȱcomeȱ toȱmind.ȱHereȱtheȱWDȬ40ȱmarkȱisȱveryȱstrong,ȱwhile,ȱasȱweȱ detailȱ below,ȱ Sorensen’sȱ crosshairȱ markȱ isȱ quiteȱ weak.ȱ Thisȱ makesȱitȱunlikelyȱthatȱaȱconsumerȱwillȱthinkȱthatȱtheȱWDȬ40ȱ productȱ isȱ crossȬbrandedȱ withȱ Sorensen’sȱ line.ȱ Theȱ secondȱ relevantȱ comparisonȱ isȱ betweenȱ theȱ seniorȱ user’sȱ markȱ andȱ theȱimageȱthatȱappearsȱonȱtheȱjuniorȱuser’sȱproduct.ȱIfȱcrossȬ brandingȱwereȱindeedȱoccurring,ȱtheȱjuniorȱuserȱwouldȱlikeȬ lyȱuseȱanȱexactȱcopyȱofȱtheȱseniorȱuser’sȱmark,ȱandȱprobablyȱ theȱnameȱofȱtheȱseniorȱuser’sȱproductȱasȱwell.ȱHere,ȱthough,ȱ asȱ weȱ concludedȱ previously,ȱ theȱ WDȬ40ȱ crosshairȱ isȱ quiteȱ differentȱ fromȱ Sorensen’s.ȱ Moreover,ȱ ifȱ theȱ productȱ wereȱ crossȬbranded,ȱitȱwouldȱnotȱjustȱcontainȱthisȱcrosshair,ȱsinceȱ thatȱ isȱ aȱ relativelyȱ weakȱ sourceȱ ofȱ Sorensen’sȱ product.ȱ RaȬ ther,ȱ itȱ wouldȱ probablyȱ featureȱ Sorensen’sȱ stylizedȱ THEȱ INHIBITORȱlogo,ȱwithȱeitherȱtheȱcrosshairȱorȱaȱbull’sȱeyeȱinȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ 25 theȱ placeȱ ofȱ theȱ “O.”ȱ Ifȱ crossȬbrandingȱ wereȱ occurring,ȱ theȱ juniorȱ userȱ wouldȱ seekȱ toȱ makeȱ itȱ asȱ clearȱ asȱ possible;ȱ itȱ wouldȱ notȱ useȱ aȱ significantlyȱ differentȱ formȱ ofȱ aȱ seldomȬ usedȱlogo.ȱAltogether,ȱweȱthinkȱthatȱthatȱnoȱconsumerȱwouldȱ thinkȱ thatȱ theȱ Specialistȱ productsȱ wereȱ coȬbrandedȱ byȱ Sorensen.ȱ ii.ȱSimilarityȱofȱtheȱproductsȱ Theȱrelevantȱinquiryȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱtheȱsimilarityȱofȱtheȱ productsȱfactorȱisȱnotȱwhetherȱtheȱproductsȱareȱinterchangeȬ able,ȱbutȱwhetherȱtheȱproductsȱareȱtheȱkindȱtheȱpublicȱmightȱ veryȱ wellȱ attributeȱ toȱ aȱ singleȱ source.ȱ Autozone,ȱ 543ȱ F.3dȱ atȱ 931.ȱTheȱdistrictȱcourtȱfoundȱthatȱthisȱfactorȱsupportsȱWDȬ40,ȱ butȱ weȱ disagree.ȱ Twoȱ ofȱ theȱ productsȱ atȱ issue—Sorensen’sȱ V80ȱ VCIȱ blendȱ andȱ WDȬ40’sȱ LongȬTermȱ Corrosionȱ InhibiȬ tor—areȱfunctionallyȱidentical.ȱSo,ȱatȱtheȱveryȱleast,ȱthisȱfacȬ torȱ supportsȱ Sorensenȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ whetherȱ WDȬ40ȱ inȬ fringesȱ hisȱ trademarkȱ byȱ usingȱ itsȱ crosshairȱ logoȱ onȱ thatȱ productȱinȱparticular.ȱȱ Lookingȱatȱtheȱparties’ȱproductȱlinesȱasȱaȱwhole,ȱtheȱdisȬ trictȱcourtȱconcludedȱthatȱtheȱproductsȱinȱSorensen’sȱlineȱandȱ theȱSpecialistȱproductsȱareȱnotȱtheȱtypeȱthatȱtheȱpublicȱmightȱ attributeȱ toȱ aȱ singleȱ source.ȱ Sorensen’sȱ lineȱ ofȱ productsȱ inȬ cludesȱ oil,ȱ grease,ȱ polyȱ bags,ȱ wipingȱ clothes,ȱ plugs,ȱ paper,ȱ andȱproȱchips,ȱallȱofȱwhichȱcontainȱVCI.ȱTheȱSpecialistȱprodȬ ucts,ȱwithȱoneȱexception,ȱareȱallȱspraysȱthatȱcomeȱinȱaerosolȱ cans;ȱ onlyȱ oneȱ containsȱ VCI.ȱ Weȱ think,ȱ however,ȱ thatȱ conȬ sumersȱmightȱveryȱwellȱexpectȱSorensen,ȱasȱtheȱproducerȱofȱ rustȬpreventiveȱproducts,ȱtoȱexpandȱhisȱproductȱlineȱintoȱtheȱ typesȱ ofȱ spraysȱ includedȱ inȱ theȱ Specialistȱ line.ȱ Seeȱ id.ȱ (“Theȱ rightsȱ ofȱ anȱ ownerȱ ofȱ aȱ registeredȱ trademarkȱ extendȱ toȱ anyȱ goodsȱorȱservicesȱthat,ȱinȱtheȱmindsȱofȱconsumers,ȱmightȱbeȱ 26ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ putȱoutȱbyȱaȱsingleȱproducer.”).ȱTheȱfactȱthatȱSorensen’sȱcurȬ rentȱproductsȱallȱcontainȱVCIȱisȱminimallyȱrelevant;ȱWDȬ40’sȱ lineȱdemonstratesȱthatȱtheȱsameȱproducerȱsometimesȱmanuȬ facturesȱbothȱproductsȱthatȱdoȱandȱdoȱnotȱcontainȱVCI.ȱItȱalȬ soȱ seemsȱ eminentlyȱ possibleȱ thatȱ WDȬ40ȱ mightȱ expandȱ itsȱ SpecialistȱlineȱintoȱtheȱproductsȱproducedȱbyȱSorensen.ȱWDȬ 40ȱalreadyȱmakesȱaȱrustȬpreventingȱsprayȱcontainingȱVCI.ȱItȱ wouldȱnotȱbeȱsurprisingȱforȱtheȱcompanyȱtoȱstartȱproducingȱ otherȱ VCIȬcontainingȱ rustȬpreventiveȱ materials.ȱ Again,ȱ theȱ contentsȱofȱSorensen’sȱproductȱlineȱdemonstrateȱthatȱcompaȬ niesȱ sometimesȱ produceȱ bothȱ VCIȱ sprayȱ andȱ otherȱ VCIȬ containingȱmaterials.ȱȱ WDȬ40ȱpointsȱtoȱaȱcase,ȱBarbecueȱMarx,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱ551ȱOgden,ȱ Inc.,ȱ 235ȱ F.3dȱ 1041,ȱ 1045ȱ (7thȱ Cir.ȱ 2000),ȱ inȱ whichȱ weȱ saidȱ that,ȱ inȱ consideringȱ thisȱ factorȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ restaurants,ȱ courtsȱ shouldȱ considerȱ theȱ restaurants’ȱ “ambiancesȱ andȱ themes.”ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ weȱ saidȱ thatȱ twoȱ restaurantsȱ areȱ notȱ necessarilyȱ similarȱ productsȱ justȱ becauseȱ theyȱ areȱ bothȱ restaurants.ȱInȱtheȱcontextȱofȱthisȱcase,ȱWDȬ40ȱsuggestsȱthatȱ itsȱ Specialistȱ productsȱ areȱ differentȱ thanȱ Sorensen’sȱ becauseȱ theyȱhaveȱaȱdifferentȱ“ambiance”—theȱ“WDȬ40ȱambiance”— dueȱtoȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱtheȱWDȬ40ȱshield.ȱItȱfurtherȱsuggestsȱ thatȱ itsȱ productsȱ haveȱ differentȱ “themes”—essentially,ȱ colȬ ors—thanȱSorensen’s.ȱȱ Thisȱargumentȱmissesȱtheȱmarkȱentirely.ȱItȱisȱobviousȱthatȱ twoȱrestaurantsȱcanȱbeȱsoȱdissimilarȱasȱtoȱbeȱessentiallyȱdifȬ ferentȱ products.ȱ Aȱ MichelinȬstarredȱ Frenchȱ restaurantȱ isȱ whollyȱ differentȱ fromȱ aȱ Chineseȱ takeȬoutȱ restaurant.4ȱ ConȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 4ȱTheȱrestaurantsȱinȱBarbequeȱMarxȱwereȱadmittedlyȱnotȱasȱdissimilarȱasȱ thoseȱinȱourȱhypothetical.ȱBothȱwereȱbarbequeȱrestaurants.ȱTheȱplaintiff’sȱ restaurant,ȱhowever,ȱwasȱsmall,ȱdecoratedȱinȱaȱ1950sȱstyle,ȱandȱfocusedȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ 27 sumers,ȱ moreover,ȱ wouldȱ notȱ expectȱ theȱ ownerȱ ofȱ oneȱ ofȱ theseȱrestaurantsȱtoȱbranchȱ intoȱ theȱother’sȱ partȱofȱ theȱ marȬ ket.ȱAȱrestaurant’sȱambianceȱandȱthemesȱareȱpartȱofȱitsȱprodȬ uct,ȱbecauseȱvisitingȱaȱrestaurantȱisȱaȱserviceȱexperience.ȱTheȱ productsȱatȱissueȱinȱourȱcase,ȱinȱcontrast,ȱdoȱnotȱhaveȱthemesȱ orȱ ambiance—theyȱ onlyȱ haveȱ branding.ȱ Theȱ colorsȱ andȱ deȬ signsȱ foundȱ onȱ theȱ outsideȱ ofȱ anȱ aerosolȱ canȱ areȱ notȱ theȱ product.ȱItȱisȱcircularȱtoȱlookȱatȱproducts’ȱbranding—inȱotherȱ words,ȱ theirȱ trademarks—toȱ consider,ȱ forȱ trademarkȱ inȬ fringementȱ purposes,ȱ whetherȱ twoȱ productsȱ areȱ similar.ȱ ProductsȱthatȱcomeȱinȱsprayȱbottlesȱcanȱofȱcourseȱbeȱveryȱdifȬ ferent—windowȱ cleanerȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ sameȱ asȱ sprayȱ paint.ȱ Butȱ that’sȱbecauseȱofȱwhatȱisȱinsideȱtheȱbottle,ȱnotȱwhatȱisȱprintedȱ onȱ theȱ outside.ȱ Weȱ thereforeȱ findȱ thatȱ thisȱ factorȱ favorsȱ Sorensen.ȱȱ iii.ȱAreaȱandȱmannerȱofȱconcurrentȱuseȱ Inȱconsideringȱthisȱfactor,ȱcourtsȱlookȱatȱ“whetherȱthereȱisȱ aȱ relationshipȱ inȱ use,ȱ promotion,ȱ distributionȱ orȱ salesȱ beȬ tweenȱtheȱgoodsȱorȱservicesȱofȱtheȱparties.”ȱCAE,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱCleanȱ AirȱEng’g,ȱInc.,ȱ267ȱF.3dȱ660,ȱ681ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2001).ȱWeȱalsoȱlookȱ toȱ whetherȱ theȱ partiesȱ useȱ theȱ sameȱ channelsȱ ofȱ commerce,ȱ targetȱ theȱ sameȱ generalȱ audience,ȱ orȱ useȱ similarȱ marketingȱ procedures.ȱId.ȱatȱ681–82.ȱȱ ThisȱfactorȱgenerallyȱprovidesȱlittleȱsupportȱforȱSorensen.ȱ HeȱpresentsȱnoȱconcreteȱevidenceȱthatȱWDȬ40’sȱproductsȱandȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ onȱbluesȱmusic.ȱTheȱdefendant’s,ȱinȱcontrast,ȱ“style[d]ȱitselfȱasȱanȱ‘irrevȬ erent’ȱ restaurant,ȱ usingȱ …ȱ sexuallyȱ chargedȱ slogans,”ȱ andȱ hadȱ aȱ veryȱ differentȱ interiorȱ feelȱ thanȱ plaintiff’sȱ restaurant.ȱ But,ȱ asȱ weȱ noteȱ above,ȱ evenȱtheseȱrelativelyȱminorȱdifferencesȱhadȱtoȱdoȱwithȱtheȱparties’ȱprodȬ ucts,ȱnotȱmerelyȱwithȱtheirȱbranding.ȱ 28ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ hisȱownȱproductsȱhaveȱeverȱbeenȱsoldȱnextȱtoȱeachȱother,ȱthatȱ theyȱ targetȱ theȱ sameȱ consumers,ȱ thatȱ theyȱ haveȱ everȱ beenȱ advertisedȱ throughȱ theȱ sameȱ channels,ȱ orȱ thatȱ theȱ productsȱ wereȱbothȱshownȱatȱtheȱsameȱtradeȱshowȱinȱtheȱsameȱyear.ȱȱ Sorensenȱ does,ȱ however,ȱ provideȱ someȱ evidenceȱ fromȱ whichȱaȱjuryȱcouldȱmakeȱlimitedȱinferencesȱinȱhisȱfavor.ȱItȱisȱ undisputedȱ thatȱ Sorensenȱ andȱ WDȬ40ȱ bothȱ sellȱ productsȱ atȱ Menards,ȱthoughȱtheȱproductsȱareȱcurrentlyȱsoldȱinȱdifferentȱ sectionsȱ andȱ Sorensen’sȱ VCIȱ oilsȱ andȱ sprays—theȱ productsȱ mostȱsimilarȱtoȱWDȬ40’s—areȱnotȱsoldȱatȱMenards.ȱSo,ȱwhileȱ aȱ consumerȱ mayȱ encounterȱ bothȱ parties’ȱ productsȱ whileȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ store,ȱ heȱ willȱ notȱ seeȱ themȱ bothȱ simultaneously.ȱ ThoughȱSorensen’sȱproductsȱareȱnotȱsoldȱatȱbigȱboxȱorȱmassȱ storesȱ otherȱ thanȱ Menards,ȱ aȱ juryȱ couldȱ inferȱ thatȱ bothȱ hisȱ andȱ WDȬ40’sȱ Specialistȱ productsȱ areȱ soldȱ atȱ smallerȱ hardȬ wareȱ storesȱ suchȱ asȱ Ace.ȱ And,ȱ thoughȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ evidenceȱ thatȱ WDȬ40ȱ specificallyȱ marketsȱ toȱ Sorensen’sȱ targetȱ audiȬ ence—huntersȱ andȱ fishermen—thatȱ isȱ somewhatȱ besideȱ theȱ point,ȱ asȱ WDȬ40ȱ effectivelyȱ targetsȱ allȱ consumers.ȱ Sorensenȱ alsoȱ specificallyȱ targetsȱ membersȱ ofȱ theȱ military.ȱ WDȬ40ȱ arȬ guesȱ thatȱ itȱ doesȱ not,ȱ butȱ aȱ juryȱ couldȱ inferȱ thatȱ itȱ doesȱ throughȱitsȱsaleȱofȱitsȱproductsȱtoȱAFISȱandȱDeCA,ȱwhichȱinȱ turnȱsupplyȱmilitaryȱcommissaries.ȱȱ Evenȱ makingȱ allȱ inferencesȱ inȱ Sorensen’sȱ favor,ȱ asȱ weȱ mustȱatȱthisȱstage,ȱthisȱfactorȱonlyȱweaklyȱsupportsȱSorensen.ȱ iv.ȱDegreeȱofȱcareȱexercisedȱbyȱconsumersȱ Generally,ȱ courtsȱ consideringȱ thisȱ factorȱ assumeȱ thatȱ “[t]heȱmoreȱwidelyȱ accessibleȱandȱ inexpensiveȱtheȱ productsȱ andȱ services,ȱ theȱ moreȱ likelyȱ thatȱ consumersȱ willȱ exerciseȱ aȱ lesserȱdegreeȱofȱcareȱandȱdiscriminationȱinȱtheirȱpurchases.”ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ 29 Id.ȱ atȱ 683.ȱ Whenȱ customersȱ useȱ aȱ lesserȱ degreeȱ ofȱ care,ȱ thisȱ supportsȱaȱfindingȱthatȱthereȱisȱaȱlikelihoodȱofȱconfusion.ȱ BothȱSorensen’sȱandȱWDȬ40’sȱproductsȱareȱquiteȱinexpenȬ siveȱ(underȱ$12),ȱandȱcouldȱevenȱbeȱcharacterizedȱasȱimpulseȱ purchases.ȱ Theȱ districtȱ courtȱ heldȱ thatȱ thisȱ factorȱ tendedȱ toȱ supportȱ Sorensen,ȱ andȱ weȱ agree.ȱ WDȬ40ȱ arguesȱ thatȱ conȬ sumersȱ searchingȱ forȱ itsȱ famousȱ shield—whichȱ appearsȱ onȱ itsȱ Specialistȱ products—takeȱ muchȱ greaterȱ careȱ inȱ purchasȬ ingȱ toȱ ensureȱ thatȱ theyȱ areȱ indeedȱ choosingȱ theȱ correctȱ product.ȱThatȱmayȱbeȱtrue,ȱbutȱitȱisȱirrelevantȱtoȱthisȱcase,ȱinȱ whichȱ Sorensenȱ allegesȱ thatȱ WDȬ40ȱ isȱ infringingȱ hisȱ tradeȬ mark.ȱTheȱconsumersȱrelevantȱtoȱourȱlikelihoodȱofȱconfusionȱ inquiryȱ areȱ notȱ thoseȱ whoȱ goȱ toȱ theȱ storeȱ seekingȱ toȱ buyȱ WDȬ40ȱ products.ȱ Ratherȱ weȱ areȱ interestedȱ inȱ thoseȱ customȬ ersȱ whoȱ seekȱ toȱ buyȱ Sorensen’sȱ productsȱ (orȱ areȱ undecidedȱ aboutȱwhatȱtoȱbuy),ȱandȱareȱpotentiallyȱmisledȱintoȱbuyingȱaȱ Specialistȱ product.ȱ Thatȱ factȱ thatȱ WDȬ40’sȱ brandȱ mayȱ beȱ strongȱ doesȱ notȱ influenceȱ howȱ carefulȱ theseȱ customersȱ areȱ likelyȱtoȱbe.ȱWDȬ40ȱpointsȱtoȱaȱnumberȱofȱourȱcasesȱinȱwhichȱ weȱhaveȱstatedȱthatȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱaȱwellȬknownȱmarkȱcanȱ leadȱconsumersȱtoȱexerciseȱaȱhigherȱdegreeȱofȱcare.ȱSee,ȱe.g.,ȱ BarbecueȱMarx,ȱ235ȱF.3dȱatȱ1045.ȱInȱeachȱofȱthoseȱcases,ȱhowȬ ever,ȱtheȱfamousȱmarkȱbelongedȱtoȱtheȱplaintiff;ȱtheȱstrengthȱ ofȱ theȱ plaintiff’sȱ markȱ meantȱ thatȱ consumersȱ searchingȱ forȱ theȱplaintiff’sȱgoodȱorȱserviceȱwereȱlikelyȱtoȱtakeȱmoreȱcareȱtoȱ ensureȱthatȱtheyȱchoseȱcorrectly.ȱHere,ȱthough,ȱtheȱsituationȱ isȱreversed,ȱandȱtheȱrelevantȱconsumersȱareȱunlikelyȱtoȱexerȬ ciseȱ aȱ greatȱ dealȱ ofȱ care.ȱ Thisȱ factor,ȱ therefore,ȱ weighsȱ inȱ Sorensen’sȱfavor.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ 30ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ v.ȱStrengthȱofȱSorensen’sȱmarkȱ “Theȱ ‘strength’ȱ ofȱ aȱ trademarkȱ refersȱ toȱ theȱ mark’sȱ disȬ tinctiveness,ȱmeaningȱitsȱpropensityȱtoȱidentifyȱtheȱproductsȱ orȱ servicesȱ soldȱ asȱ emanatingȱ fromȱ aȱ particularȱ source.”ȱ CAE,ȱ267ȱF.3dȱatȱ684.ȱ“Theȱstrongerȱtheȱmark,ȱtheȱmoreȱlikelyȱ itȱisȱthatȱencroachmentȱonȱitȱwillȱproduceȱconfusion.”ȱAutoȬ Zone,ȱ 543ȱ F.3dȱ atȱ 933.ȱ Aȱ mark’sȱ strengthȱ ordinarilyȱ correȬ spondsȱtoȱitsȱeconomicȱandȱmarketingȱstrength.ȱId.ȱȱ Sorensenȱhasȱpresentedȱlittleȱevidenceȱdemonstratingȱtheȱ strengthȱofȱhisȱcrosshairȱmark.ȱThoughȱthereȱisȱevidenceȱthatȱ Sorensenȱ hasȱ includedȱ theȱ crosshairȱ markȱ inȱ advertisingȱ sinceȱ theȱ lateȱ 1990s,ȱ heȱ hasȱ offeredȱ noȱ consumerȱ surveysȱ orȱ testimonyȱ regardingȱ theȱ public’sȱ awarenessȱ ofȱ theȱ mark,ȱ orȱ salesȱ dataȱ showingȱ thatȱ productsȱ bearingȱ theȱ markȱ areȱ soȱ widelyȱsoldȱthatȱaȱjuryȱcouldȱinferȱthatȱmanyȱconsumersȱareȱ awareȱ ofȱ theȱ mark.ȱ Mostȱ damagingȱ toȱ Sorensen’sȱ argumentȱ regardingȱ thisȱ factorȱ isȱ hisȱ inconsistentȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ crosshairȱ mark.ȱ Inconsistentȱ useȱ makesȱ aȱ symbolȱ lessȱ helpfulȱ toȱ conȬ sumersȱ asȱ aȱ sourceȱ indicator,ȱ andȱ thereforeȱ aȱ weakerȱ mark.ȱ Sorensen’sȱcrosshairȱhasȱbeenȱusedȱsinceȱ1997,ȱbutȱinconsistȬ ently—sometimesȱ theȱ crosshairȱ hasȱ symbolsȱ inȱ eachȱ quadȬ rant,ȱ sometimesȱ theȱ quadrantsȱ areȱ empty,ȱ andȱ manyȱ timesȱ thereȱisȱnoȱcrosshairȱatȱall,ȱbutȱratherȱaȱbull’sȱeye.ȱThisȱfactorȱ thereforeȱsquarelyȱsupportsȱWDȬ40.ȱ vi.ȱEvidenceȱofȱactualȱconfusionȱ Sorensenȱ admitsȱ thatȱ heȱ doesȱ notȱ haveȱ anyȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ actualȱ confusion.ȱ Asȱ heȱ correctlyȱ pointsȱ out,ȱ however,ȱ eviȬ denceȱofȱactualȱconfusionȱisȱnotȱrequiredȱtoȱproveȱthatȱaȱlikeȬ lihoodȱofȱconfusionȱexists.ȱCAE,ȱ267ȱF.3dȱatȱ686.ȱȱ ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ 31 vii.ȱBadȱfaithȱintentȱ Thisȱ factorȱ focusesȱ onȱ evidenceȱ thatȱ theȱ defendantȱ isȱ atȬ temptingȱ toȱ passȱ offȱ itsȱ productȱ asȱ havingȱ comeȱ fromȱ theȱ plaintiff.ȱPackman,ȱ267ȱF.3dȱatȱ644.ȱMereȱknowledgeȱofȱsomeȬ oneȱ else’sȱ markȱ isȱ insufficientȱ toȱ showȱ intentȱ toȱ passȱ off.ȱ Barbequeȱ Marx,ȱ 235ȱ F.3dȱ atȱ 1046.ȱ Weȱ aboveȱ concludedȱ thatȱ thereȱisȱenoughȱevidenceȱforȱaȱjuryȱtoȱinferȱthatȱWDȬ40ȱknewȱ aboutȱ Sorensen’sȱ productsȱ andȱ hisȱ THEȱ INHIBITORȱ wordȱ mark;ȱ weȱ comeȱ toȱ theȱ sameȱ conclusionȱ regardingȱ hisȱ crossȬ hairȱmark.ȱJustȱasȱwithȱtheȱwordȱmark,ȱhowever,ȱweȱfindȱthatȱ Sorensenȱ hasȱ presentedȱ noȱ evidenceȱ thatȱ WDȬ40ȱ attemptedȱ toȱ passȱ offȱ itsȱ productsȱ asȱ Sorensen’s.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ noȱ evidenceȱ thatȱECHO,ȱtheȱfirmȱthatȱfirstȱdesignedȱtheȱWDȬ40ȱcrosshair,ȱ hadȱanyȱknowledgeȱofȱSorensen’sȱmark.ȱItȱseemsȱhighlyȱunȬ likely,ȱ therefore,ȱ that,ȱ afterȱ ECHOȱ cameȱ upȱ withȱ theȱ designȱ onȱ itsȱ own,ȱ WDȬ40ȱ choseȱ itȱ becauseȱ itȱ hopedȱ toȱ siphonȱ offȱ salesȱ fromȱ Sorensen.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ WDȬ40ȱ shieldȱappearsȱonȱtheȱSpecialistȱproductsȱtendsȱtoȱsuggestȱaȱ lackȱofȱbadȱfaith—whyȱincludeȱthisȱwellȬknownȱmarkȱifȱWDȬ 40ȱ wasȱ attemptingȱ toȱ confuseȱ consumersȱ intoȱ thinkingȱ thatȱ theȱ productȱ wasȱ notȱ producedȱ byȱ WDȬ40,ȱ butȱ ratherȱ byȱ Sorensen.ȱȱ Thoughȱ aȱ reasonableȱ juryȱ couldȱ findȱ thatȱ WDȬ40ȱ knewȱ aboutȱ Sorensen’sȱ crosshairȱ markȱ whenȱ itȱ adoptedȱ itsȱ ownȱ crosshairȱ design,ȱ itȱ couldȱ notȱ reasonablyȱ concludeȱ thatȱ itȱ copiedȱtheȱmarkȱinȱbadȱfaith.ȱThisȱfactorȱthereforeȱsupportsȱ WDȬ40.ȱȱ *ȱ *ȱ *ȱ Weȱagreeȱwithȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱthatȱsummaryȱjudgmentȱ wasȱ appropriateȱ inȱ thisȱ case.ȱ Although,ȱ asȱ notedȱ above,ȱ aȱ 32ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ numberȱ ofȱ theȱ likelihoodȱ ofȱ confusionȱ factorsȱ provideȱ supȬ portȱforȱSorensen,ȱthatȱisȱnotȱenoughȱtoȱcreateȱaȱmaterialȱdisȬ puteȱofȱfactȱthatȱmustȱbeȱpresentedȱtoȱaȱjury.ȱAHP,ȱ1ȱF.3dȱatȱ 616.ȱRather,ȱtheȱrelevantȱquestionȱisȱwhether,ȱlookingȱatȱtheȱ sevenȱ factorsȱ collectively,ȱ aȱ reasonableȱ juryȱ couldȱ findȱ inȱ Sorensen’sȱ favor.ȱ Theȱ threeȱ mostȱ importantȱ factors— similarityȱofȱtheȱmarks,ȱbadȱfaithȱintent,ȱandȱevidenceȱofȱacȬ tualȱ confusion—allȱ pointȱ decisivelyȱ inȱ favorȱ ofȱ WDȬ40.ȱ ParȬ ticularlyȱimportantȱisȱtheȱdissimilarityȱofȱtheȱmarks;ȱbecauseȱ weȱ concludeȱ thatȱ noȱ consumerȱ wouldȱ thinkȱ thatȱ theȱ marksȱ areȱ similar,ȱ weȱ cannotȱ imagineȱ anyȱ consumerȱ beingȱ conȬ fused.ȱAlsoȱcentralȱtoȱourȱconclusionȱisȱtheȱclearȱweaknessȱofȱ Sorensen’sȱ marks,ȱ whichȱ appearȱ onlyȱ rarelyȱ andȱ inconsistȬ entlyȱ onȱ hisȱ products.ȱ Weighedȱ together,ȱ theȱ sevenȱ factorsȱ showȱ noȱ disputedȱ issueȱ ofȱ materialȱ factȱ thatȱ mustȱ beȱ preȬ servedȱforȱtheȱjury.ȱ III.ȱConclusionȱ WeȱAFFIRMȱtheȱjudgmentȱofȱtheȱdistrictȱcourt.ȱ