regarding a single factor are insufficient” to deny “summary judgment unless they tilt the entire balance in favor of such a finding.” Id. (quoting Duluth News-Tribune, 84 F.3d at 1096). Accordingly, the Court applies each factor in turn. (a) Strength “Two relevant measurements of a mark’s strength are its conceptual strength and its commercial strength.” Lovely Skin, 745 F.3d at 888 (citation omitted). “Whether a mark is federally registered does not bear on a mark’s strength or affect the likelihood of confusion analysis.” Id. at 887 (citations omitted). A plaintiff may establish a mark’s strength by “direct evidence,” such as with “consumer surveys or consumer testimony,” and advertising expenses and sales figures must be sufficiently tied to the trademark in question. Id. at 888 (<HOLDING>). Further, “evidence of third party usage of
holding a district court did not err in its consideration of detailed evidence submitted of the plaintiffs advertising expenditures and revenues over time holding district court did not abuse its discretion in not granting plaintiffs leave to amend complaint for a third time holding that the district court did not err in dismissing the named plaintiffs claims on summary judgment before reaching the issue of class certification holding that trial court did not err holding that the district court did not err in determining that inadvertent disclosure did not result in waiver