A History of the Evolution of Likelihood of Confusion Methodologies Jerre B. Swann

In the district court, both the lamp and the bulb studies were decimated on cross examination of the plaintiff’s survey expert, and the Seventh Circuit failed to address a flaw in the surveys that, in my opinion, substantially inflated the percentage of batteries responses. [...] Many had no knowledge of boats and were not “purchasers.” The questioning was conducted by two college students, and the tabulations were held to be “neither accurate nor truly reflective.”33 The Seventh Circuit, however, did not address the district court’s tacit observation that the “Ever-Ready” label on the mini bulbs and lamps evoked the EVEREADY schema and triggered an unknown percentage of “. [...] 113 TMR As for the bias created by the advertising question in the mini bulb study, the Seventh Circuit acknowledged that (given the disparity in the parties’ expenditures) there was a problem,39 but noted the similarity of the lamp and mini bulb study results and opined that “we believe the likelihood of substantial bias as a result of the advertising question is small.”40 I have argued that any. [...] 2014) (“Despite the fact that the watches in the study had a Swiss Legend logo on their faces, those who identified them as Audemars watches nonetheless listed the aspects of the Royal Oak trade dress design as the reason, including the octagonal shape of the watch (23%), the style, design or shape of the watch dial (20%), [and] the octagonal bezel and shape or look (15%)”), rev’d in part on other. [...] The look of the Hummer was close to the surface of memory and was “oft” cued by the very similar look of the Urban Gorilla.