of confusion.” Id. at 1054. These marks do not look alike at all. There was no evidence of actual confusion. No customers testified that they confused Rino and Falcon products because of the product stamps. The general manager of a plumbing company testified that his company was confused as to which manufacturer produced some leaking connectors they installed. But he did not testify that the confusion was a result of the product stamps. There was no evidence that could lead a reasonable juror to conclude that Rino’s use of its visually dissimilar product stamp was “likely to confuse an appreciable number of people as to the source of the product.” Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1151 (9th Cir.2002) (emphasis in original); see also Nutri/Sys., 809 F.2d at 607 (<HOLDING>); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406
holding that a robbery of 40 to 50 satisfied the de minimis standard holding that fiveday suspension was not a de minimis deprivation holding that the district court properly found that trivial instances of actual confusion were de minimis holding that district court properlydiscounted four calls as de minimis holding that even several isolated incidents of actual confusion are insufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion