991 F.2d at 1078. The district, court found the two marks to be very similar. Because we are firmly persuaded that in making this finding the trial judge was mistaken, we set that finding aside as clearly erroneous. While the two names sound similar, the trademarks themselves are not confusingly similar, given the context in which a purchaser sees them. See, e.g., Arrow Fastener Co., 59 F.3d at 396 (concluding that defendant’s use of a six-digit model number that contained the symbol “T50” was not confusingly similar to plaintiffs use of the mark, “Model T — 50”); W.W.W. Pharm., 984 F.2d at 573 (finding the two marks “Sportstick” and “Right Guard Sport Stick” distinct because of the second user’s addition of the company name and different mode of presentation); Lang, 949 F.2d at 582 (<HOLDING>). Several key distinctions may be observed
holding that defendants use of the name new choices for the best years was not confusingly similar to plaintiffs mark new choices press based in part on the defendants inclusion of additional words and use of a different typeface holding that in reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and draw all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jurys verdict holding that the defendants use of the domain name moviebuffcom violated plaintiffs trademark rights in the mark moviebufp holding limited use of a mark did not constitute prior use in commerce sufficient to establish rights in the mark holding that concurrent use of same mark on similar product was sufficient to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion