does not alone and as a matter of law constitute overlapping marketing channels.” Entrepreneur Medid, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1151 (9th Cir.2002) (emphasis in original). A general “reference to Internet use is no more proof of a company’s marketing channels than the fact that it is listed in the Yellow Pages of the telephone directory.” Therma-Scan, Inc. v. Thermoscan, Inc., 295 F.3d 623, 637 (6th Cir.2002). In o urrent Media, LLC, Case No. 1:05-CV-385, 2005 WL 1847215, at *5 (S.D.Ohio Aug. 2, 2005) (finding marketing channels did not overlap substantially and weighed against finding a likelihood of confusion where, despite both parties’ generic Internet use, they appeared to have different target markets); R.L. Polk & Co. v. INFOUSA Inc., 230 F.Supp.2d 780, 791 (E.D.Mich.2002) (<HOLDING>). Although Holdings has presented evidence that
holding that similar allegations were insufficient to state a due process claim holding attending and marketing products at national trade show in texas insufficient to confer general jurisdiction recognizing products liability and products actions based on negligence as part of the general maritime law holding the district court erroneously weighed the overlapping marketing channels factor in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion based solely on the fact that the parties both used the internet as a marketing channel where it did not appear based on the record that either partys use of the internet was significant enough to be pertinent holding the plaintiffs general claim that both parties market their products over the internet was insufficient to establish that they used similar marketing channels