(4) evidence of actual confusion; [DCT note: Proof of actual confusion is not required, but can be powerful evidence of a likelihood of confusion]
(5) the similarity of marketing channels used;
(6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser [DCT note: Confusion is more likely for an impulse purchase than one in which the buyer pays careful attention to what s/he's getting];
(7) the defendant's intent. [DCT note: Willful copying of another's mark is often taken as circumstantial evidence that consumer confusion is indeed likely, otherwise presumably the copier wouldn't have bothered.]
-snip-
In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including:
(1) the strength of the mark [DCT note: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness];
(2) the proximity of the goods;
(3) the similarity of the marks;
(4) evidence of actual confusion; [DCT note: Proof of actual confusion is not required, but can be powerful evidence of a likelihood of confusion]
(5) the similarity of marketing channels used;
(6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser [DCT note: Confusion is more likely for an impulse purchase than one in which the buyer pays careful attention to what s/he's getting];
(7) the defendant's intent. [DCT note: Willful copying of another's mark is often taken as circumstantial evidence that consumer confusion is indeed likely, otherwise presumably the copier wouldn't have bothered.]
-snip-