Several of the other factors also favor a finding that the defendants' use of the terms "playboy" and "playmate" is likely to cause confusion. The defendants' Web site consists of computer images of nude women, which is also the core of PEI's business. Although the defendants' use of the term "playmate" as the main component of the domain names asian-playmates.com and playmates- asian.com. did not exactly duplicate PEI's mark, minor differences between the registered mark and the unauthorized use of the mark do not preclude liability under the Lanham Act. See Lone Star Steakhouse, supra, (finding use of "Lone Star Grill" to be an infringement of registered mark "Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon"). The defendants also used the slogan "FOR THE PLAYBOY IN ALL OF US" on the home page of each Web site. The defendants offered merchandise such as key chains, calendars, wrist watches, and pens under the asian-playmates name. PEI owns federal trademark registrations for each of these types of goods. PEI has presented evidence of at least one instance of actual consumer confusion. (Kaiser Decl. 21; Ex. M). Finally, both parties use the Internet as a facility to provide goods and services.
The magistrate judge therefore finds a strong likelihood that the consuming public would believe that the defendants' Web site was sponsored by or somehow affiliated with PEI, given (1) the strength of PEI's trademarks PLAYBOY and PLAYMATE; (2) the defendants' unauthorized use of the identical marks PLAYBOY and PLAYMATE; (3) the similarity of the goods and services offered by PEI and the defendants; (4) the evidence of actual confusion; and (5) that the Internet is the exact marketing channel used by both PEI and the defendants. See Cardservice Int'l. Inc. v. McGee, 950 F.Supp. 737, 740 (E.D.Va.1997) (citing Pizzeria Uno Corp. v. Temple, 747 F.2d 1522, 1527 (4th Cir.1984)
|
