to determine whether use of the Internet as a selling or marketing tool is evidence that the parties utilize similar marketing channels, the court must evaluate (1) whether both parties use the Internet as a substantial marketing and advertising channel, (2) whether the parties’ marks are utilized in conjunction with Internet-based products, and (3) whether the parties’ marketing channels overlap in any other way. Id. (quoting Entrepreneur Media, Inc., 279 F.3d at 1151). In this case, with respect to the first of these factors, Holdings has failed to provide any factual record from which a rational trier of fact could conclude that the parties’ use of the Internet as a selling and/or marketing tool could be regarded as “substantial.” See Entrepreneur Media, Inc., 279 F.3d at 1151-52 (<HOLDING>); see also Current Communications Group, LLC v.
holding the district court erroneously weighed the overlapping marketing channels factor in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion based solely on the fact that the parties both used the internet as a marketing channel where it did not appear based on the record that either partys use of the internet was significant enough to be pertinent holding that even several isolated incidents of actual confusion are insufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion holding that the district court should not have entered a default judgment against an intervenor based on the original partys failure to appear holding the plaintiffs general claim that both parties market their products over the internet was insufficient to establish that they used similar marketing channels holding that most important factors in evaluating confusion in product configuration eases are marketing and labeling of products