267 F.3d at 686. The Seventh Circuit has upheld a finding of consumer confusion based on “letters, phone calls, and inquiries received by the plaintiff.” Int’l Kennel Club, 846 F.2d at 1090. On the other hand, instances of confusion that are not attributable to the applicable consumer group are entitled to less weight. See, e.g., Packman v. Chi Tribune Co., 267 F.3d 628, 645 (7th Cir. 2001) (friends and family who did not intend to purchase goods were not relevant consumers under the Lanham Act); CAE, Inc., 267 F.3d at 686 (testimony absent identity of speaker and timeframe not entitled to much weight, “particularly because the speaker was not a customer of CAE, Inc. but rather a supplier”). De minimis evidence of confusion may also be dis counted. See, e.g., Packman, 267 F.3d at 645 (<HOLDING>); Smith Fiberglass Prods., Inc. v. Ameron,
holding that the district court properly found that trivial instances of actual confusion were de minimis holding that fiveday suspension was not a de minimis deprivation holding that to demonstrate retaliation complainedof action must be more than de minimis  holding that district court properlydiscounted four calls as de minimis holding that a robbery of 40 to 50 satisfied the de minimis standard