of Nashville & Davidson County, 274 F.3d 377, 400 (6th Cir.2001). These four considerations “are factors to be balanced, not prerequisites that must be met.” Hamad v. Woodcrest Condo. Ass’n, 328 F.3d 224, 230 (6th Cir.2003). IV. ANALYSIS 1) Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Plaintiffs claims of trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, trademark infringement under Mich. Comp. Laws § 18.638, and unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) all employ the same “likelihood of confusion” test. Daddy’s Junky Music Stores, Inc. v. Big Daddy’s Family Music Ctr., 109 F.3d 275, 280 (6th Cir.1997) (employing the “likelihood of confusion” standard to a federal trademark infringement claim); The Sports Authority v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 965 F.Supp. 925, 934, fn. 5 (E.D.Mich.1997) (<HOLDING>); Champions Golf Club v. The Champions Golf
holding that although the underlying action is one for trademark infringement the infringement occurred as a result of the underlying defendants use of the trademark in their advertising holding that actual confusion though not required is the best evidence supporting trademark infringement holding that as in an action alleging infringement of a mark likelihood of confusion is the essence of an unfair competition claim holding that proof of unauthorized use of an original trademark by one whose license to use the trademark had been terminated is sufficient to establish the likelihood of confusion prong holding that trademark infringement under michigan common law is governed by the likelihood of confusion standard