Jay Deck, ¶ 1. In that survey, respondents were read the sentence “We have pledged a minimum of 1.5 million dollars worldwide to charity as a/in tribute to the beloved Princess Diana,” and were then asked “What does this sentence mean to you?” and “When the sentence refers to charity does any particular charity or organization come to mind?” Id., ¶ 2. Aggregating responses across both questions, only 6.9% of respondents said they thought money was being donated to “a/the Princess Diana fund; the Princess Diana trust fund; the Princess Diana organization; Diana or Princess Diana’s/her charity.” Id., ¶ 3. “[S]urvey evidence clearly favors the defendant when it demonstrates a level of confusion much below ten percent.” Sara Lee Corp. v. Kayser-Roth Corp., 81 F.3d 455, 467 (4th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); see also Visa Int’l Service Ass’n v. Eastern
holding 3040 confusion between leggs and leg looks provided significant degree of actual confusion holding that actual confusion though not required is the best evidence supporting trademark infringement 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 even several isolated incidents of actual confusion are insufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion recognizing confusion caused by prima facie language