will be confused by two products. See id. at 768. But a “plaintiff is not required to bring forth incidents of actual confusion to succeed in an infringement case.” Id. (citation omitted). “In analyzing this factor, weight is given to the number and extent of instances of actual confusion.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). Though “evidence of actual confusion may be the best evidence of likelihood of confusion,” even evidence of “a few instances” of actual confusion “is not conclusive of’ the existence of a likelihood that consumers would “be confused as to the source” of the product, the “core element” of trademark infringement. Davis v. Walt Disney Co., 430 F.3d 901, 905 (8th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks and citations omitted); see Duluth News-Tribune, 84 F.3d at 1098-99 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff admits it has no evidence of any
holding 3040 confusion between leggs and leg looks provided significant degree of actual confusion holding that concurrent use of same mark on similar product was sufficient to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion holding that even several isolated incidents of actual confusion are insufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion holding that survey evidence offered to show actual confusion was properly excludable under rule 403 when it was so flawed that its probative value was outweighed by the risk of prejudice or confusion holding that trademark infringement under michigan common law is governed by the likelihood of confusion standard