See Society of Financial Examiners v. National Ass’n of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc., 41 F.3d 223, 225 (5th Cir.) (“The gravamen for any action of trademark infringement or common law unfair competition is whether the challenged mark is likely to cause confusion.”), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1103, 115 S.Ct. 2247, 132 L.Ed.2d 255 (1995). Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the use of its mark by defendant “is likely to cause confusion among consumers as to the source, affiliation, or sponsorship” of defendants’ “products or services. A ‘likelihood of confusion’ means that confusion is not just possible, but probable.” Scott Fetzer Co. v. House of Vacuums, Inc., 381 F.3d 477, 483 (5th Cir.2004); see also Kentucky Fried Chicken v. Diversified Packaging Corp., 549 F.2d 368, 382 (5th Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>). The digits of confusion test applies to this
holding that antitrust violations are unfair methods of competition under the ftc act holding that actual reliance is not required to establish injury under nc gen stat  5863151 2001 which governs the unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the business of insurance holding that the determinative question in applying common law tort of unfair competition is whether the tortfeasors practices are likely to mislead customers into believing that the product emanates from or has been endorsed by the claimant holding that for a plaintiff to establish secondaryline competitive injury resulting from price discrimination injuring competition among the discriminating sellers customers the plaintiff must show actual competition with that sellers customers holding that though we do not have exclusive jurisdiction over unfair competition claims our own circuit law nonetheless determines when inequitable conduct also constitutes unfair competition