Roto-Rooter Corp. & Gerald R. Abbott D/B/A Roto Rooter Sewer Serv. v. Kenneth O'Neal, 513 F.2d 44 (5th Cir. 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
Roto-Rooter Corp. & Gerald R. Abbott D/B/A Roto Rooter Sewer Serv. v. Kenneth O'Neal, 513 F.2d 44 (5th Cir. 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
144 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 28 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Sueros y Bebidas Rehidratantes, S.A. de D.V. v. Indus Enterprises, LLC (txsd, 2023-09-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sueros y Bebidas Rehidratantes, S.A. de D.V. v. Indus Enterprises, LLC
S.D. Tex. · 2023 · confidence medium
This factor is therefore neutral. g) Actual Confusion “Although evidence of actual confusion is not necessary to a finding of likelihood of confusion, it is nevertheless the best evidence of likelihood of confusion.” Amstar, 615 F.2d at 263 (citing Roto–Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 46 (5th Cir.1975)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) T.M.T., LLC d/b/a Midtown Wine & Spirits, a Mississippi Registered Service Mark v. Midtown Market Wine & Spirits, LLC (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Miss. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
The court determines the likelihood of confusion, evaluating several factors, “including the type of trademark at issue, the similarity of design; similarity of service; [the] identity of service facilities and customers; similarity of advertising media used; the defendant’s intent; and actual confusion.” Citizens, 157 F. Supp. 2d at 718; (quoting Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45 (5th Cir. 1975)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Yellowfin Yachts, Inc. v. Barker Boatworks, LLC
M.D. Fla. · 2017 · confidence medium
Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45-46 (5th Cir. 1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gruma Corporation v. Mexican Restaurants, Inc.
5th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
Id.(citing Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O'Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 46-47 (5th Cir. 1975) (reviewing the district court's fact-finding on a likelihood of confusion de novo where it applied the incorrect legal standard)) (other citations omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) MarbleLife, Inc. v. Stone Resources, Inc.
E.D. Pa. · 2010 · confidence medium
Roto-Rooter Corporation v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45 (5th Cir.1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) RE/MAX International, Inc. v. Trendsetter Realty, LLC
S.D. Tex. · 2009 · confidence medium
This factor favors neither party. (7) Actual Confusion “Although evidence of actual confusion is not necessary to a finding of likelihood of confusion, it is nevertheless the best evidence of likelihood of confusion.” Amstar, 615 F.2d at 263 (citing Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 46 (5th Cir.1975)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Ltd. v. America's Team Properties, Inc.
N.D. Tex. · 2009 · confidence medium
Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45 (5th Cir.1975).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
N.D. Ga. · 2008 · confidence medium
Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45-46 (5th Cir.1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Texas Tech University v. Spiegelberg
N.D. Tex. · 2006 · confidence medium
Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45 (5th Cir.1975); Marathon, 767 F.2d at 217 ; Scott Fetzer, 381 F.3d at 485 ; Elvis Presley Enters., Inc. v. Capece, 141 F.3d 188 , 194 (5th Cir.1998); Sno-Wizard, 791 F.2d at 425 ; Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252 (5th Cir.1980); Westchester Media, 214 F.3d 658 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ctzns Bnk Meridian v. Citizens Bank (2×) also: Cited "see"
5th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45 (5th Cir. 1975).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Tiffany & Broadway, Inc. v. Commissioner of Patents & Trademarks
S.D. Tex. · 2001 · confidence medium
Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45 (5th Cir.1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Westchester Media Co. v. PRL USA Holdings, Inc.
S.D. Tex. · 1999 · confidence medium
Although, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals once commented, in a footnote, that “there is no doubt that laches may defeat claims for injunctive relief as well as claims for an accounting”, that proposition is anything but certain in this circuit. 10 Armco, Inc. v. Amco Burglar Alarm Co., 693 F.2d at 1160 n. 14, (citing Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 46 (5th Cir.1975), and Saratoga Vichy Spring Co. v. Lehman, 625 F.2d 1037 (2nd Cir.1980)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) CICCorp., Inc. v. Aimtech Corp.
S.D. Tex. · 1998 · confidence medium
Group, Inc., 878 F.2d at 813 ; Falcon Rice Mill, Inc., 725 F.2d at 345 ; Sun-Fun Prods., Inc., 656 F.2d at 191 ; Exxon Corp., 628 F.2d at 506 ; Soweco, Inc., 617 F.2d at 1186 ; Kentucky Fried Chicken Corp., 549 F.2d at 386 ; Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45-46 (5th Cir.1975).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Popular Bank of Fla. v. BANCO POPULAR PUERTO RICO
S.D. Fla. · 1998 · confidence medium
Cf., Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Safeway Discount Drugs, Inc., 675 F.2d 1160, 1162 (11th Cir.1982) (two instances); Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O'Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 46 (5th Cir.1975);(four instances); John H.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) NBA Properties, Inc. v. Dahlonega Mint, Inc.
N.D. Ga. · 1998 · confidence medium
Freedom Sav. & Loan Assoc., 757 F.2d at 1176, 1182 ; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Safeway Discount Drugs, 675 F.2d 1160, 1164 (11th Cir.1982); Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 44 (5th Cir.1975); 1 Continental Motors Corp. v. Continental Aviation Corp., 375 F.2d 857, 857 (5th Cir.1967).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pebble Beach Co. v. Tour 18 I, Ltd.
S.D. Tex. · 1996 · confidence medium
Taco Cabana Int’l v. Two Pesos, Inc., 932 F.2d 1113, 1122 (5th Cir.1991), aff'd, 505 U.S. 763 , 112 S.Ct. 2753 , 120 L.Ed.2d 615 (1992); Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45 (5th Cir.1975).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Letica Corp. v. Sweetheart Cup Co.
E.D. Mich. · 1992 · confidence medium
Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45 (5th Cir.1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Conopco, Inc. v. May Dept. Stores Co.
E.D. Mo. · 1992 · confidence medium
See also Varitronics Svs., Inc. v. Merlin Equip., Inc., 682 F.Supp. 1203, 1208-09 (S.D.Fla.1988) (while there is only one incident of actual confusion, "it is a very compelling incident" and substantiates a finding of likelihood of confusion); Molenaar, Inc. v. Happy Toys, Inc., 188 U.S.P.Q. 469 (T.T.A.B.1975) (single instance of confusion is at least "illustrative of how and why confusion is likely"); Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O'Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 46 (5th Cir.1975) (very little proof of actual confusion is necessary to prove likelihood of confusion); Ambrit, Inc. v. Kraft, Inc., 812 F.2d 1531 (11t…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Taco Cabana International, Inc. v. Two Pesos, Inc.
5th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O'Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45 (5th Cir.1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Service Merchandise Co. v. Service Jewelry Stores, Inc. (2×)
S.D. Tex. · 1990 · confidence medium
Soweco, Inc. v. Shell Oil Company, 617 F.2d 1178, 1185 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 981 , 101 S.Ct. 1516 , 67 L.Ed.2d 816 (1981); Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45 (5th Cir.1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Problem Pregnancy of Worcester, Inc. (2×)
Mass. · 1986 · confidence medium
Co. v. Spencer, 319 Mass. 331 (1946); Professional Economics, Inc., supra at 73-79; Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45 (5th Cir. 1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) PLANNED PARENTHOOD FED. OF AM. v. Problem Pregnancy (2×)
Mass. · 1986 · confidence medium
Co. v. Spencer, 319 Mass. 331 (1946); Professional Economics, Inc., supra at 73-79; Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O'Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45 (5th Cir.1975).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Schmidt v. Honeysweet Hams, Inc.
N.D. Ga. · 1986 · confidence medium
Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45-46 (5th Cir.1975).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc.
N.D. Ga. · 1986 · confidence medium
Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 46 (5th Cir.1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Entertainment & Sports Programming Network, Inc. v. Edinburg Community Hotel, Inc.
S.D. Tex. · 1986 · confidence medium
Exxon Corp. v. Texas Motor Exch. of Houston, Inc., 628 F.2d 500, 504 (5th Cir. 1980); Armstrong Cork Co. v. World Carpets, Inc., 597 F.2d 496, 500 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 932 , 100 S.Ct. 277 , 62 L.Ed.2d 190 (1979); Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45 (5th Cir.1975).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Television Enterprise Network, Inc. v. Entertainment Network, Inc.
D.N.J. · 1986 · confidence medium
Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 46 (5th Cir.1975); 3A R.
cited Cited as authority (rule) American Automobile Ass'n v. AAA Insurance Agency, Inc.
W.D. Tex. · 1985 · confidence medium
Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45-46 (5th Cir.1975).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Isaly Co. v. Kraft, Inc.
M.D. Fla. · 1985 · confidence medium
Exxon Corp v. Texas Motor Exchange, 628 F.2d 500, 504 (5th Cir.1980); Roto-Rooter Corp v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45 (5th Cir.1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cox Communications, Inc. v. Susquehanna Broadcasting Co.
N.D. Ga. · 1985 · confidence medium
Roto-Rooter Corporation v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45 (5th Cir.1975), citing Continental Motors Corp. v. Continental Aviation Corp., 375 F.2d 857 (5th Cir.1967); see also Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Safeway Discount Drugs, 675 F.2d 1160, 1164 (11th Cir.1982); Sun Banks of Florida v. Sun Federal Savings & Loan Association, 651 F.2d 311, 314 (5th Cir.1981).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Safeway Insurance (3×)
M.D. La. · 1985 · confidence medium
Sun Banks, 651 F.2d at 318 ; Amstar, 615 F.2d at 262 ; Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45 (5th Cir.1975); American Foods v. Golden Flake, Inc., 312 F.2d 619 , 624 (5th Cir.1963).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fuji Photo Film Company, Inc., Cross-Appellee v. Shinohara Shoji Kabushiki Kaisha and Graphic MacHinery International, Inc., Cross-Appellants
5th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Chevron Chemical Co. v. Voluntary Purchasing Groups, 659 F.2d 695, 704 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1126 , 102 S.Ct. 2947 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1342 (1982); Exxon Corp. v. Texas Motor Exchange, 628 F.2d 500, 506 (5th Cir.1980); Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 46 (5th Cir.1975); World Carpets, Inc. v. Dick Littrell’s New World Carpets, 438 F.2d 482, 489 (5th Cir. 1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Entertainment & Sports Programming Network, Inc. v. Edinburg Community Hotel, Inc.
S.D. Tex. · 1985 · confidence medium
Exxon Corp. v. Texas Motor Exch. of Houston, Inc., 628 F.2d 500, 504 (5th Cir.1980); Armstrong Cork Co. v. World Carpets, Inc., 597 F.2d 496, 500 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 932 , 100 S. C-t 277, 62 L.Ed.2d 190 (1979); Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45 (5th Cir.1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Induct-O-Matic Corporation v. Inductotherm Corporation
6th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
Generally, proof of secondary meaning is not required with regard to a suggestive term, Miller, 561 F.2d at 79 , nor by the owner of a registered trademark, Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 46-47 (5th Cir.1975).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Freedom Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Way
M.D. Fla. · 1984 · confidence medium
Roto-Rooter Corporation v. O’Neal, supra at 46.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pro Hardware, Inc. v. Home Centers of America, Inc.
S.D. Tex. · 1984 · confidence medium
Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45 (5th Cir.1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jellibeans, Incorporated, a Georgia Corporation, Cross-Appellant v. Skating Clubs of Georgia, Inc., a Georgia Corporation, Cross-Appellee (2×)
11th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
Safeway Stores, 675 F.2d at 1167 ; Roto Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 47 (5th Cir.1975); World Carpets, Inc. v. Dick Littrell’s New World Carpets, 438 F.2d 482, 489 (5th Cir.1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pizzeria Uno Corp. v. Temple
D.S.C. · 1983 · confidence medium
“Although evidence of actual confusion is not necessary to a finding of likelihood of confusion, it is nevertheless the best evidence of likelihood of confusion.” Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d at 263 , citing RotoRooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 46 (5th Cir.1975).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ergon, Inc. v. Dean
Tex. App. · 1983 · confidence medium
Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 258-259 (5th Cir.1980); Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45 (5th Cir.1975).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Armco, Inc. v. Armco Burglar Alarm Co., Inc. (3×)
5th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45 (5th Cir.1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. Toy Loft, Inc.
11th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
OAA, moreover, presented evidence of actual confusion by a potential customer, 17 and this evidence is “patently the best evidence of likelihood of confusion.” Chevron Chemical, supra, 659 F.2d at 704 ; Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45-46 (5th Cir. 1975); World Carpets, Inc. v. Dick Littrell’s New World Carpets, 438 F.2d 482, 489 (5th Cir. 1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. The Toy Loft, Inc.
11th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
OAA, moreover, presented evidence of actual confusion by a potential customer, 17 and this evidence is "patently the best evidence of likelihood of confusion." Chevron Chemical, supra, 659 F.2d at 704 ; Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O'Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45-46 (5th Cir. 1975); World Carpets, Inc. v. Dick Littrell's New World Carpets, 438 F.2d 482, 489 (5th Cir. 1971).
examined Cited as authority (rule) King-Size, Inc. v. Frank's King Size Clothes, Inc. (3×)
S.D. Tex. · 1982 · confidence medium
Ray Jewelry Co., 676 F.2d 1079, 1082 ; Kentucky Fried Chicken Corp. v. Diversified Packaging Corp., 549 F.2d 368, 388 (5th Cir. 1977); Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45 (5th Cir. 1975).
cited Cited as authority (rule) The Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston, Inc. v. Medical Directors, Inc. And Weight Reduction Medical Centers, Inc.,defendants-Appellants
5th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 263 (5th Cir. 1980); Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 46 (5th Cir. 1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Safeway Stores, Incorporated, Cross-Appellee v. Safeway Discount Drugs, Inc., Cross-Appellant (2×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
More recent cases have followed a more complex, multifactor analysis that includes “the type of trademark at issue; similarity of design; similarity of product; identity of retail outlets and purchasers; identity of advertising media utilized; defendant’s intent; and actual confusion.” 4 Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45 (5th Cir. 1975) (footnotes omitted); see also Sun Banks, supra, 651 F.2d at 314-19 ; Exxon Corp., supra, 628 F.2d at 504 ; Amstar, supra, 615 F.2d at 259 . 5 Considering these factors, we are left with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has b…
cited Cited as authority (rule) American Rice, Inc. v. Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Ass'n
S.D. Tex. · 1982 · confidence medium
See Chevron Chemical Co., supra, at 703; Amstar Corp., supra, at 259; Exxon Corp., supra, at 504; Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45 (5th Cir. 1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brooks Shoe Manufacturing Co. v. Suave Shoe Corp.
S.D. Fla. · 1981 · confidence medium
“In determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion, the finder of fact evaluates a variety of factors: the type of trademark, the similarity of design, the similarity of the product, the similarity of the advertising media used, the defendant’s intent and actual confusion.” Exxon Corp. v. Texas Motor Exchange, supra at 504; Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45 (5th Cir. 1975).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Buitoni Foods Corp. v. Gio. Buton & C. S.P.A.
E.D.N.Y · 1981 · confidence medium
Curtis-Stephens-Embry, Co. v. Pro-Tek-Toe Skate Stop Company, 199 F.2d 407, 413 (8th Cir. 1952); Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neil, 513 F.2d 44, 46-47 (5th Cir. 1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Exxon Corp. v. Humble Exploration Co., Inc.
N.D. Tex. · 1981 · confidence medium
Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45 (5th Cir. 1975). (a) Type of Trademark The Court considers first whether the Plaintiffs’ trademark “HUMBLE” is a “strong” or “weak” mark because the strength of a mark is a vital consideration in determining the scope of protection it should be accorded.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sun-Fun Products, Inc. v. Suntan Research & Development Inc.
5th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
Sun-Fun did not present any evidence of actual confusion. 6 However, such evidence is not a prerequisite for a finding of likelihood of confusion, Exxon, 628 F.2d at 506 ; Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O’Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45 (5th Cir. 1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Exxon Corporation v. Texas Motor Exchange of Houston, Inc. (2×)
5th Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O'Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45 (5th Cir. 1975).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ROTO-ROOTER CORPORATION and Gerald R. Abbott D/B/A Roto Rooter Sewer Service, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Kenneth O’NEAL Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
74-1423.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
May 14, 1975.
513 F.2d 44
Paul L. De Verter, II, Houston, Tex., for Roto-Rooter., Stewart W. Forbes, El Paso, Tex., for Gerald R. Abbott., William J. Derrick, El Paso, Tex., Ben C. Buckingham, Des Moines, Iowa, for plaintiffs-appellants., Dean Hester, El Paso, Tex., for defendants-appellees.
Rives, Godbold, Gee.
Cited by 94 opinions  |  Published
GODBOLD, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff, Roto-Rooter Corporation, an Iowa corporation was granted a federal registration in 1954 for its service mark “Roto-Rooter” for municipal, industrial and domestic sewer, drain and pipe cleaning service. The mark dates back to 1935. In 1963 it was granted registration for its design form of the same mark for the services of cleaning sewer, oil and water pipes, field and drain tile, and conduits for electrical cable. In 1965 plaintiff Gerald R. Abbott, a licensee of Roto-Rooter, established a Roto-Rooter Sewer Service in El Paso, Texas, serving that city and the surrounding county and adjacent parts of New Mexico.

Defendant Rotary De-Rooting, Inc., a Nevada corporation, owns state trademarks in Nevada and California for the term “Rotary De-Rooting” in conjunction with a drawing of an angel utilizing a sewer cleaning machine and a slogan “the sewer man with a conscience.” It conducts sewer service operations through its own employees or through franchises principally in cities in California and also in Nevada and Texas. Defendant George B. Hess commenced a Rotary DeRooting Sewer Service operation in El Paso in 1973 in competition with the Roto-Rooter franchise. Promptly thereafter Roto-Rooter notified defendants it claimed infringement and commenced this action for infringement and unfair competition.

After trial the District Court denied relief to plaintiffs. It concluded that there was no evidence of any statistically significant confusion in relation to the value of business done by plaintiffs in the El Paso community, that the name “Rotary DeRooting Sewer Service” was not deceptively or confusingly similar to the Roto-Rooter name, and that any person exercising ordinary care could readily distinguish . the trade names utilized by the parties. The court also found that Roto-Rooter was bound by laches, because it had actual knowledge beginning in 1968 that defendant Hess and his predecessors had continuously employed in the Las Vegas, Nevada, area the trade name Rotary De-Rooting Sewer Service in direct competition with a franchise of Roto-Rooter. We reverse.

Infringement of a registered mark is governed by 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1) which imposes liability against “use likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.” Proof of actual confusion is not necessary — likelihood of confusion is the appropriate inquiry. Continental Motors Corp. v. Continental Aviation Corp., 375 F.2d 857 (CA5, 1967); American Foods, Inc. v. Golden Flake, Inc., 312 F.2d 619 (CA5, 1963); Frostie Company v. Dr. Pepper Company, 341 F.2d 363 (CA5, 1965). In this circuit likelihood of confusion is determined by evaluating a variety of factors including the type of trademark at issue; [1] similarity of design; [2] similarity of product; [3] identity of retail outlets and purchasers; [4] identity of advertising media utilized; [5] defendant’s intent; [6] and actual confusion. [7] While proof of actual confusion is[*46] not required to sustain a claim of infringement, the view of this court is that it is the best evidence of likelihood of confusion. World Carpets, Inc. v. Dick Littrell’s New World Carpets, 438 F.2d 482, 489 (CA5, 1971).

The decision of the trial court must be reversed ’ for two interrelated reasons. The court appears to have employed an incorrect legal standard, and, when examined under correct standards, plaintiffs’ evidence established the likelihood of confusion required by the law of this circuit. The trial court referred to absence of evidence of statistically significant confusion. The test is, of course, likelihood of confusion.

The plaintiffs presented evidence of actual confusion — under World Carpets the best evidence of likelihood — by the testimony of four persons who had mistakenly employed defendants although intending to use the service of plaintiffs. The District Court considered their testimony “not statistically significant.” However, as this court said in World Carpets, “reason tells us that very little proof of actual confusion would be necessary to prove the likelihood of confusion.” 438 F.2d at 489. Additionally, the court found that the four persons had “simply made an error” which “resulted from carelessness or inadvertence rather than from any confusing similarity between either the names or the advertisements of the parties.” The record does not support this finding, either directly or as an inference. Cross-examination, rather than demonstrating carelessness or inadvertence, showed that the four persons had ma'de their mistakes because of reliance upon the similarity of defendants’ name to that of plaintiffs’. This is precisely the type of error that 15 U.S.C. § 1114 seeks to protect against. Also, witness Hoffman, one of the two stockholders in the defendant company, the licensor of Rotary De-Rooting franchises, testified:

Q Can you give examples of what you are talking about [in referring to the word “rooter” as meaning a particular type of service with a particular type of machine, as opposed to a particular company]?
A Well, occasionally when you go on a job people say — you will knock at the door and they say “Oh, are you the Roto-Rooter man?” and we say “We are Rotary De-Rooting.” and they say “Well, that is the same thing.”.

In March 1968 plaintiff RotoRooter Corporation sent an infringement letter to a business in Las Vegas, Nevada, operated by the predecessor of Rotary De-Rooting, Inc., and under the.Rotary De-Rooting Sewer Service name. Roto-Rooter then had a franchise in Las Vegas, and it claimed that the Rotary De-Rooting Sewer Service name infringed the Roto-Rooter name. However, no litigation was instituted by Roto-Rooter or its Las Vegas franchise against Rotary De-Rooting, although Roto-Rooter did sue others in the Las Vegas area claiming infringement. In 1970 defendant George Hess worked for the Las Vegas franchise of Rotary De-Rooting Sewer Service. In 1971 he purchased that franchise. In January 1973, after acquiring from Rotary De-Rooting, Inc., the right to use the Rotary De-Rooting Sewer Service name in the El Paso area, Hess began operations in El Paso. Within a month Roto-Rooter notified him of alleged infringement, and suit was filed in April 1973. Thus the impact of the failure of Roto-Rooter to police its rights by litigation in the Las Vegas area must be traced from Rotary De-Rooting, Inc.’s, predecessor, to Rotary De-Rooting, Inc., thence to Hess in Las Vegas, and finally to Hess in El Paso, where another RotoRooter franchise was operating. Bearing in mind these circumstances and the fact that March 1968 to February 1973 is slightly, less than five years, we think that the equitable defense of laches was not properly invoked in this case.

The District Court found that plaintiffs had failed to prove secondary meaning. But proof was unnecessary with respect to the registered marks.[*47] Curtis-Stephens-Embry Co. v. Pro-Tek-Toe Skate Stop Co., 199 F.2d 407 (CA8, 1952); Vandenburgh, Trademark Law and Procedure, 2d Ed., 1968, § 2.20 at 59. Reversed and remanded.

1

. See American Foods, supra, 312 F.2d at 624.

3

. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. All States Life Ins. Co., 246 F.2d 161, 166 (CA5), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 894, 78 S.Ct. 268, 2 L.Ed.2d 192 (1957).

4

. American Foods, supra, 312 F.2d at 624; see also Continental Motors, supra, 375 F.2d at 861.

5

. American Foods, supra, 312 F.2d at 624; see also Continental Motors, Supra, 375 F.2d at 861.

6

. American Foods, supra, 312 F.2d at 625.

7

. American Foods, supra, 312 F.2d at 624.