the similarity between the products, the greater the likelihood of confusion. Sally Beauty Co., 304 F.3d at 974. With respect to this factor, the court separately considers (1) the similarity of products and (2) the similarity in the manner of marketing the products. Id. In this case, the similarity of products would appear at first blush to weigh strongly in favor of a likelihood of confusion with respect to Motorcycles’ apparel and collectibles because the two product lines are so similar. ’ See Boston Athletic Ass’n v. Sullivan, 867 F.2d 22, 30 (1st Cir.1989) (noting a strong likelihood of confusion existed with respect to similarity in goods where both parties offered shirts and other wearing apparel); cf. Beer Nuts, Inc. v. Clover Club Foods Co., 805 F.2d 920, 926 (10th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). But, appropriate recognition must be given to
recognizing that substantial change is a defense to a products liability claim holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to enjoin some products but not others recognizing the significance of control in strict products liability holding that although the district court recognized confusion based on similarity of products it failed to give proper weight to the virtual identity of the parties products recognizing products liability and products actions based on negligence as part of the general maritime law