website) where the entire product title was capitalized: “ONE-PULL BAGS.” But even that example shows that the separate (or hyphenated) term “ONE PULL” is visually distinct from the single word, misspelled term ONEPUL or ONEPul. The BagSpot trade dress accompanying the use of the term across defendant’s website and its advertisements only further serves to distinguish even the most similar instance of the two marks, while many others bear almost no resemblance to one another, ie., “one pull” versus ONEPul. Nor is there evidence of record that consumers are likely to assign the same meaning to ONEPUL as “one pull,” or that they will pronounce the single, misspelled term the same as the two English words from which it appears to have been derived. Cf. Aveda, 706 F.Supp. at 1429 (<HOLDING>). But even assuming arguendo the terms actually
holding the district court erred by relying too heavily on the appearance and pronunciation of the marks where the differences between the entire marks and their attending logos outweighed the similarities holding that despite some differences between the charged offense and the collateral crime similarities between the two were striking enough to establish a unique crime pattern holding expert testimony on probative similarities between works is unnecessary where the works are not highly technical and the jury is capable of recognizing and understanding the similarities between the works without the help of an expert recognizing similarities between illinois and federal law on relation back recognizing auditory similarities between two marks at summary judgment where the plaintiff had linguistic expert evidence that the marks were pronounced similarly