One of the things I miss most about my hearing is not being able to do pub quizzes anymore. Unless the entire room is deathly quiet, I can never understand the questions. And once people start talking about answers I can't distinguish the useful voices from the background.
🙁
![5. Degree of Care Exercised by Purchasers
Confusion between marks is generally more likely where the goods at issue involve relatively inexpensive, "impulse" products to which the average, "unsophisticated" consumer does not devote a great deal of care and consideration in purchasing. [Cita-tions.] Wine has been deemed an "impulse" product, and certainly so with respect to the average consumer, effectively compelling the consumer's reliance "on faith in the maker." Taylor Wine Co. v. Bully Hill Vineyards, Inc., 569 F.2d 731, 733-34 (2d Cir. 1978); see also id. ("The average American who drinks wine on occasion can hardly pass for a connoisseur of wines"). Indeed, Gallo Nero employees themselves have testified that the average American consumer is unlearned in the selection of wine.
The only opposition Gallo Nero offers to Gallo's characterization of the wine-buying public is a single 1959 case from the Middle District of Alabama, stating that "the wine-buying public - insofar as their selection and purchase of wine is con-cerned - is a highly discriminating group." E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Ben R. Goltsman & Co., 172 F. Supp. 826, 830 (M.D. Ala. 1959). That case, however, involved plain-tiff's "THUNDERBIRD" fortified wine with the "Gallo" name above - versus the defendant's "THUNDERBOLT" - with the words "Private Stock" immediately below-both products arguably failing any classification as "fine wines." Moreover, with all due respect to Alabama, it would seem common knowledge that wine was not a widely appreciated beverage in the South in 1959,](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:yznhv2s64cinbyf2yogijj3g/bafkreidjltlj355pecuapklrpmzuofawgxd7omia3ombfobnkhg6y2osfq)
