at 812 (identifying pharmacists as the audience); Mylan Labs. Inc. v. Pharm. Basics, Inc., 808 F.Supp. 446, 459 (D.Md.1992) (distinguishing between advertisements targeted at the public and those targeted at pharmacists) rev'd on other grounds, 7 F.3d 1130 (4th Cir.1993). 20 . Defendants argue that the survey evidence is barred pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and the Federal Rules of Evidence 403, 702, and 703. The court has reviewed Dr. Reisetter's survey and Defendants’ arguments against admissibility, and finds that the survey is sufficiently relevant and reliable to warrant consideration. See, e.g., Indianapolis Colts, Inc. v. Metro. Balt. Football Club Ltd. P'ship, 34 F.3d 410, 416 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Mobil Oil Corp. v. Pegasus Petroleum Corp.,
holding that district courts rejection of survey offered to show secondary meaning was not clearly erroneous holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record holding district court decision to exclude survey for failure to conduct it under actual marketing conditions not clearly  erroneous holding that it was not clearly erroneous for the district court to consider survey evidence even though the survey was imperfect holding that district courts findings were not clearly erroneous where there was  sufficient evidence  that the defendants waiver of his rights was knowing and intelligent