in the “House-warmer” line and its catalogue is not entitled to protection from the Lanham Act. Consequently, the court need not address the issue of likelihood of confusion, the last element necessary to establish protection under the Lanham Act. See Boston Beer, 9 F.3d at 183. A determination of likelihood of confusion generally involves an eight-step analysis and requires factual findings. Although it is not essential to the court’s conclusion, if the court needed to decide the issue of likelihood of confusion, it would hold that no reasonable juror could conclude that there is a likelihood of confusion, where clearly marked company names are featured on the face of the products and catalogues. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. McNeil-P.P.C., Inc., 973 F.2d 1033, 1045 (2d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Conopco Inc. v. May Dept. Stores, 46 F.3d
holding that even several isolated incidents of actual confusion are insufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion holding that strong evidence of guilt weighs against finding fundamental unfairness holding that unquestionable lack of actual prejudice weighs against a finding of a speedy trial violation holding prominence of trade names  weighs heavily against a finding of consumer confusion holding that district court must separately analyze whether use of metatags alone without the inclusion of those marks in the domain names creates a likelihood of confusion