context: The undisputed familiarity of Eastern Union with the WESTERN UNION mark and its well-known affiliation with money transfer services, imitation of the WESTERN UNION mark, and repeated refusals to discontinue use of a mimetic mark established that Eastern Union intended to capitalize on the reputation and infringe on the market created by Western Union. Although Western Union did not present evidence of actual customer confusion, the district court correctly concluded that proof of actual confusion was not required when the overwhelming evidence regarding the remaining factors supported a judgment in favor of Western Union.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 168 F.3d 1282, 1302
citation_a.parenthetical: refusing to reverse a finding of a likelihood of confusion between marks "based merely on the absence of evidence of actual confusion"
citation_a.sentence: See Montgomery v. Noga, 168 F.3d 1282, 1302 (11th Cir.1999) (refusing to reverse a finding of a likelihood of confusion between marks “based merely on the absence of evidence of actual confusion”); see also Frehling, 192 F.3d at 1340 (evi dence of actual confusion “is not a prerequisite, and thus it is up to individual courts to assess this factor in light of the particular facts of each case”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 192 F.3d 1340, 1340
citation_b.parenthetical: evi dence of actual confusion "is not a prerequisite, and thus it is up to individual courts to assess this factor in light of the particular facts of each case"
citation_b.sentence: See Montgomery v. Noga, 168 F.3d 1282, 1302 (11th Cir.1999) (refusing to reverse a finding of a likelihood of confusion between marks “based merely on the absence of evidence of actual confusion”); see also Frehling, 192 F.3d at 1340 (evi dence of actual confusion “is not a prerequisite, and thus it is up to individual courts to assess this factor in light of the particular facts of each case”).