this factor favored Meijer. On appeal, Gray argues that for products in which consumers exercise less care there is a greater likelihood of confusion. It also argues that though the products were not placed side-by-side, they were in close proximity, and Meijer controlled the products’ placement Therefore, Gray argues it should not be disadvantaged in its case ás a result of the placement of "its products. Finally, Gray argues that this factor is less significant and dependent on similarity. Courts have adopted the general proposition that the average customer is likely not to exercise a high degree of care in purchasing relatively inexpensive and fungible products, such as snack food. See, e.g., Specialty Brands, Inc. v. Coffee Bean Distribs., Inc., 748 F.2d 669, 672 (Fed.Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); cf. Homeowners Group, 931 F.2d at 1111
holding that purchasers of relatively inexpensive products should be held to a lesser standard of purchasing care holding that standard of care need not be listed separately in report when same standard applies to each health care provider holding that an injured plaintiff with a diminished mental capacity that does not amount to total insanity can be found contributorily negligent but nonetheless should be held to a subjective standard of care recognizing that missouri courts have often held that regulations may establish the appropriate standard of care in a negligence case holding that when parties voluntarily submit to binding arbitration they generally believe that they are trading their right to appeal an arbitration award for a relatively speedy and inexpensive resolution to their dispute