on the large freestanding sign designating Phoenix’s location. Moreover, testimony given at the hearing revealed that consumers often have three or four carriers submit estimates on the expected cost of a move. Thus, because customers are likely to use great care when selecting a van line, any initial confusion originating from the inaccurate Yellow Pages listing would be dispelled as the customer encountered actual representatives from individual van lines for purposes of finding the lowest bidder. The evidence also suggests that Phoenix has made a good faith effort to alleviate confusion. Since October of 1994, Phoenix has engaged in an advertising campaign that unambiguously heralded its new relationship with-Red Ball.' See Shakey’s Inc. v. Covalt, 704 F.2d 426, 432 (9th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). Phoenix answers its phones as “Phoenix Moving
holding in a false advertising case under the lanham act that a proposed disclaimer would not suffice to cure the misleadingness of an advertising claim holding that even several isolated incidents of actual confusion are insufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion holding that plaintiffs proof of increase in defendants sales and a corresponding decrease in plaintiffs sales testimony from a consumer witness that she changed products based on defendants false advertising and survey evidence of consumer confusion was enough to prove a likelihood of competitive injury resulting from the defendants advertising holding that there must be a causal connection between an insureds advertising and an alleged injury to trigger coverage for an advertising injury holding that defendants advertising campaign help to alleviate confusion