(Federal Judicial Center 4th ed. 2004) (setting out seven criteria); Shari Seidman Diamond, Reference Guide on Survey Research, in Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence ("Diamond on Survey Research”) at 359, 373-418 (Federal Judicial Center 3d ed. 2011) (discussing criteria to be considered to determine the admissibility of and weight to be accorded to survey evidence). 45 . 6 McCarthy on Trademarks § 32:163 at 32-333. 46 . See Troublé v. Wet Seal, 179 F.Supp.2d 291, 308 (S.D.N.Y.2001) ("Although no survey can construct a perfect replica of ‘real world’ buying patterns, a survey must use a stimulus that, at a minimum, tests for confusion by roughly simulating marketplace conditions.”); see also American Footwear Corp. v. General Footwear Co. Ltd., 609 F.2d 655, 660 n. 4 (2d Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). But cf. Vista Food Exch., Inc. v. Vistar
holding that district courts rejection of survey offered to show secondary meaning was not clearly erroneous holding role enhancement was not clearly erroneous where district court made credibility decision to believe codefendants statements 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 decision regarding defendants minor role status was not clearly erroneous holding district court decision to exclude survey for failure to conduct it under actual marketing conditions not clearly  erroneous