appearance of the advertisements and the surrounding context of the screen displaying the search results—is the most critical in determining whether a likelihood of confusion exists in cases where the defendant has used a competitor’s mark as a keyword search term. Id.; see also 1-800 Contacts, 722 F.3d at 1245. OxBlue has not addressed any of these factors, let alone presented any evidence of a likelihood of confusion based on these factors. There is no evidence of the labeling and appearance of Work Zone Cam’s advertisements and the surrounding context of the screen displaying the search results. Nor is there any evidence in the record on how often customers were lured to the Work Zone Cam’s website when they searched for OxBlue on the Internet. See 1-800 Contacts, 722 F.3d at 1244 (<HOLDING>). No evidence has been presented that would
holding that concurrent use of same mark on similar product was sufficient to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion holding that since we have already held that the concurrent use of plaintiffs mark by the defendants creates the likelihood of confusion the inescapable conclusion is that there was also irreparable injury holding that as in an action alleging infringement of a mark likelihood of confusion is the essence of an unfair competition claim holding that even several isolated incidents of actual confusion are insufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion holding that there was no likelihood of initial interest confusion because an expert report showed that customers clicked on the defendants advertisement only 15 of the time that an advertisement was generated by an infringing keyword search term