Hanginout), the Court finds Google is likely to overwhelm Hanginout’s product line if the products are in competition with one another in the market due to Google’s marketplace recognition. See Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir.2002) (“Petsmart’s extensive, advertising gives it the ability to overwhelm any public recognition and goodwill that Cohn has developed in the mark.”). However, because the parties did not present any evidence as to how crowded the market actu ally is, and Hanginout cannot claim a right to all variants of the phrase in the given market, this factor does not weigh in favor of finding a likelihood of consumer confusion. See SunEarth, Inc. v. Sun Earth Solar Power Co., Ltd., 846 F.Supp.2d 1068, 1078 (N.D.Cal.2012), appeal dismissed (Apr. 18, 2012) (<HOLDING>). e. Evidence of Actual Confusion “[A] showing
recognizing that where the marks share a word or phrase but are otherwise different the plaintiff is not pmmitted to claim a right to all variant of the phrase in a specific market holding that a phrase should be interpreted consistent with the context of the statute in which it is contained holding that the possibility of a mistaken understanding of the phrase preponderance of the evidence on the part of the jury is too remote to constitute plain error when counsel gave the jury an accurate explanation of the legal meaning of the phrase in his closing argument and that meaning is consistent with the common understanding of the words in the phrase holding that the phrase or ganic diseases of the nervous system contained in 38 usc  11013 was ambiguous because the statute did not define the phrase holding that phrase other proceeding as used in rule 801e1a of the texas rules of civil evidence denoted steps and events in the process of litigation besides a trial or hearing because of the word other before the word proceeding