Williams-Sonoma French press products which replaced the Bodum products which were previously marketed. Additionally, when these consumers searched Google or the Williams-Sonoma website to find "Bodum," they presumably wanted the specific brand's products they were familiar with, and whether the online website offers products quite similar to the Bodum ones they sold before, customers might arguably think that they are actually buying Bodum branded products at the point of sale. I guess an additional argument might have been that the
Bodum and Williams-Sonoma brands might have been so closely associated with each other in the minds of Williams-Sonoma customers, and that the products presented were sufficiently similar, that a consumer could reasonably have thought they were jewelry retouching service being presented with Bodum products when the search results page conflicted. I did just a comparison, using a Bodum French Press coffee maker page from the Williams-Sonoma website that I found in the Internet Archive's Wayback
Machine from when they were still carrying Bodum products (left ), and you can see the non-Bodum French press currently found on their website (right) for comparison. The products and their style in the catalog photos are strikingly similar: Bodum v. Williams Sonoma - Comparison of Bodum and WS French press product pages. Presenting a pitch: factors to consider In the MTM/Amazon case, the court essentially concluded that there was no initial conflict of interest due to a few factors: