Full opinion text
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RAYMOND A. JACKSON, District Judge. This Memorandum Opinion and Order is issued after a bench trial in the above-styled matter to resolve trademark infringement and trademark dilution claims. . On February 1, 2013, the Radiance Foundation, Inc. (“Radiance”) and Ryan Bomberger (“Bomberger”) brought this action for declaratory judgment against the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“Defendant” or “NAACP”). Radiance and Bomberger (together referred to as “Plaintiffs”) moved this Court to enter judgment declaring that their use of certain marks allegedly owned by the NAACP was not infringing, tarnishing or diluting in violation of common law or the Lanham Act. Radiance and Bomberger also requested that the Court declare their use of these trademarks protected under the First Amendment right to free speech. The NAACP filed four counterclaims against Radiance and Bomberger, asserting it is entitled to relief for trademark infringement and trademark dilution under the Lanham Act and the Virginia Code. The NAACP claimed Plaintiffs’ use of its federally registered trademarks' “NAACP” and “Image Awards” and as well as the unregistered “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People” name and Scales of Justice Seal (referred to collectively as “NAACP Marks”) was unlawful. The Court held a bench trial, which commenced on December 10, 2013. The parties have filed post-trial briefs and this matter is now ripe for judicial determination. The Court issues the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, as required by Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth herein, Radiance and Bomber-ger’s request for declaratory judgment in their favor is DENIED. On the NAACP’s counterclaims, the Court FINDS that Plaintiffs are liable for trademark infringement and trademark dilution of the “NAACP” and “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People” trademarks. I. FACTUAL FINDINGS A. Factual and Procedural History Radiance, a non-profit organization founded by Bomberger, educates the public about social issues from a Christian perspective. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 8. The NAACP is a civil rights organization that provides educational and outreach services to African Americans. Countercl. ¶¶ 8-9. After NAACP executives publicly criticized Plaintiffs’ anti-abortion billboards in 2010 and 2011, Bomberger wrote three news articles critiquing the NAACP’s position on abortion, employing the phrase “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People.” Compl. ¶¶ 13-15. These articles were posted on Radiance’s websites TooManyAborted.com and TheRa-dianceFoundation.org as well as on a third party website LifeNews.com. Compl. ¶¶ 14-20. The first article, published June 21, 2011 on TooManyAborted.com, had a headline that read “NAACP: National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” and discussed Defendant’s endorsement of the 2004 March for Women’s Lives. Compl. ¶ 15. The second article from July 6, 2011, published on Life-News.com, included a graphic of the Scales of Justice Seal and stated that National Association for the Abortion of Colored People would be a fitting moniker for the NAACP. Compl. ¶¶ 19-20. The third article, published on TheRadianceFoundation.org, LifeNews.com and TooManyA-borted.com in January of 2013, discussed the NAACP’s Annual Image Awards. Compl. ¶¶ 23-26. This article employed the phrase' “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” throughout its text and headline. Id. Additionally, Bom-berger made a speech in December of 2012, during which he stated, “Groups such as the NAACP (which has become The National Association for the Abortion of Colored People) and the Congressional Black Caucus aid and abet this mass destruction of beautiful potential in the black community,” a statement that was later posted on TooManyAborted.com. Compl. ¶ 22. , The NAACP became aware of Radiance’s use of its marks through a Google Alert that identified the third article on LifeNews.com as a “hit” when a search for “NAACP” was performed. On January 28, 2013, the NAACP sent Plaintiffs a letter threatening to take legal action if Radiance and Bomberger did not cease to use the NAACP Marks. Compl., Ex. 7. On February 1, 2013, Radiance filed a Complaint for declaratory judgment, asserting that its use of the NAACP Marks does not constitute infringement, tarnishment or dilution and is protected speech under the First Amendment. On April 8, 2013, the NAACP filed counterclaims for trademark infringement and federal unfair competition under the Lanham Act, trademark dilution under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act, and Virginia common law trademark infringement and unfair competition. On April 29, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment simultaneously with their -Answer to the counterclaims, which this Court denied. Order, Oct. 15, 2013; ECF No. 44. On November 11, 2013, after the completion of discovery, the NAACP filed a motion for summary judgment, which was also denied. Order, Dec. 6, 2013, ECF No. 70. This Court also granted-in-part and denied-in-part the motion in limine filed by the NAACP on November 6, 2013, limiting the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert Tracy Tuten, Ph.D. to opinions regarding general consumer survey principles and methodologies. Order, Dec. 11, 2013, ECF No. 76. Lastly, this Court denied the NAACP’s request for a directed verdict in its favor as to its counterclaims. Order, Jan. 9, 2014, nunc pro tunc Dec. 12, 2013, ECF No. 83. The bench trial commenced on December 10, 2013 and ended on December 12, 2013. B. Stipulated Facts The parties have stipulated to the following facts, which the Court accepts and finds: 1. The NAACP is the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization. It owns and maintains the website at www.naacp.org. The principal stated objectives of the NAACP are to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of all citizens, and to achieve quality of rights and eliminate racial prejudice among citizens of the United States. The NAACP’s leadership consists of prominent individuals in American society, including lawyers, government officials, clergy, physicians, policymakers, and social advocates. 2. The NAACP engages in and provides community outreach, informational, and educational services activities on a range of issues of importance to the African American community. With regard to health care issues, the NAACP has advocated for equal access to quality health care for all Americans, including members of the African American community. 3. The Black community is the focus of the NAACP’s activities and programs. 4. The NAACP actively solicits contributions from, among others, members of the African American community and other people of color to support its programs and outreach activities. 5. The NAACP sponsors billboards for the purpose of promoting its campaigns and outreach activities, which are focused on issues of pressing importance to members of the Black community. 6. The NAACP mark (U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1,188,182) is a valid and subsisting federally registered trademark. By virtue of this registration, the registered NAACP mark is entitled to protection under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. 7. The marks NAACP and NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE are owned and used by the NAACP, and are valid, protect-able and distinctive. 8. The NAACP and NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE marks have achieved widespread recognition among the general public of the United States. 9. The NAACP and NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE are famous and strong marks. 10. The NAACP and NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE marks were famous before Plaintiffs’ first use of them. 11. Ryan Bomberger is a writer and media creator who, with his wife, Bethany Bomberger, formed The Radiance Foundation in 2009. 12. Radiance is a non-profit corporation (501(c)(3)) dedicated to educating people about social issues from its Christian perspective. 13. Among other things, Radiance provides informational, educational and community outreach services related to race relations, diversity, adoption, fatherlessness, pop culture, pluralism and the impact of abortion on the Black community. 14. Radiance owns and maintains the website at the URL www.the radiancefoundation.org (the “Radiance Site”). 15. Radiance launched its “TooManyA-borted.com” campaign in 2010 for Black History Month to help publicize the impact of abortion in the Black community. 16. In conjunction with this campaign, Radiance created, and continues to own and maintain the website at the URL www.toomanyaborted. com (the “TooManyAborted Site”). 17. Radiance provides community outreach services to organizations and individuals, including outreach on education, character development, social issues, and racism against the Black community. Through its “Shine” community outreach activity, Radiance takes on various social issues, including poverty, educational choice, and civil rights. 18. The stated mission of Radiance’s “TooManyAborted.com” campaign is to educate the public about abortion’s impact on the African American community. 19. Radiance purchases billboard space for the purpose of promoting and publicizing its campaigns and outreach activities. 20. Radiance has provided t-shirts and onesies (i.e. a babies’ garments) and novelty items such as stuffed animals, pins, buttons, and stickers to individuals who have donated money to Radiance. 21. “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” closely resembles “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.” . 22. Bomberger used the term “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” in order to convey to people that the actual NAACP is pro-abortion. C. Additional Factual Findings The Court has made the following additional factual findings: 1. The NAACP has no formal or official position or policy regarding abortion because such a position may create problems within its diverse membership and constituency, who embrace a wide range of views on the controversial issue of abortion. The NAACP generally supports full and equal access for all persons to all legally available forms of healthcare. 2. The “NAACP” trademark represents “[association services, namely, providing legal assistance, technical assistance and other resources to achieve civil rights in education, voting, housing, employment and economic opportunity.” “NAACP” is an acronym of the name of Defendant’s organization, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. 3. The “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People” trademark is the name of Defendant’s organization. The NAACP has extensively used “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People” in interstate commerce since its founding in 1909 to identify its organization and services. 4. The Scales of Justice Seal trademark represents the NAACP. The NAACP has extensively used the Scales of Justice Seal in interstate commerce since its founding in 1909 to identify its organization and services. The graphic of the Scales of Justice Seal includes “NAACP,” “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People” and the founding year of the organization. 5. The “Image Awards” trademark was federally registered on November 15, 2005. “Image Awards” represents services such as “organizing and conducting the presentation of awards recognizing exemplary works, people or projects that promote a positive impression of people of color; educational and entertainment services in the nature of a live show and broadcast of the presentation of awards.” The NAACP held its 44th Annual Image Awards broadcast in 201S. 6. The NAACP has used the NAACP Marks in all available media, including telephone, telegraph, faxes, magazines, newspapers, television and the Internet. 7. Radiance advocates its viewpoints on a number of social issues by preparing and distributing media in a variety of forms, including short video messages, printed graphics and news articles published on the Internet. Bomberger also makes personal appearances at events and provides interviews for the media. 8. Radiance has never owned or operated a website with any of the NAACP Marks or “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” in the domain name. 9. Neither Radiance nor Bomberger own, maintain or operate the Life-News.com website. LifeNews.com is operated by a third party. 10. In January 2013, Bomberger wrote an article regarding .the NAACP’s Annual Image Awards, bearing the headline “NAACP: National Association for the' Abortion of Colored People” (hereinafter “January 2013 Article”). This article was first posted on the Radiance Site. This article also appeared on Life-News.com. Radiance later posted the article a third time on the Too-ManyAborted Site under the title “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People.” 11. On the Radiance Site, the headline for the January 2013 Article appears in text and in a graphic. The graphic headline included the phrase “NAACP: • National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” adjacent to an image of a TooManyAborted billboard with the text “Black & Beautiful” and a photograph of an African American baby. 12. On LifeNews.com, the Scales of Justice Seal was prominently displayed on the webpage next to the text of the January 2013 Article. The webpage also contained a link to the TooManyAborted Site. Bomberger gave LifeNews.com permission to reprint the article and was aware that the Scales of Justice Seal was displayed next to the text. 13. On the TooManyAborted Site, the January 2013 Article appeared with a graphic headline that included the words “Civil Wrong” in large letters. Underneath the large letters is “The National Association for the Abortion of Colored People.” 14. Bomberger authorized and approved the uses of the NAACP Marks and name “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” in the headings, text and graphical images displayed on the webpages in the Radiance Site and the TooManyAborted Site. 15. On January 17, 2013, the NAACP learned of the existence of the January 2013 Article through an alert generated by the Google Internet search engine for the “NAACP” trademark. The Google Alert presented a hyperlink to the January 2013 Article on LifeNews.com. The hyperlink to the article appeared as the second “hit” in the Google Alert results out of a total of 18 hits. 16. On January 28, 2013, the NAACP, through counsel, sent a cease and desist letter to Radiance stating that Radiance’s use of the NAACP Marks and “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” constituted a violation of the NAACP’s trademark rights. The letter demanded that Radiance cease such uses. 17. On January 28, 2013, Bomberger sent an e-mail to Joseph A. Brinck seeking to raise money to fund a public relations effort to generate publicity for Radiance and its dispute with the NAACP. 18. Members of the public who viewed the January 2013 Article called the NAACP to express concern about the “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” moniker. 19. The NAACP engaged Henry D. Ostberg, Ph.D., an expert in marketing, consumer surveys and marketing communications, to conduct, a survey to determine consumer perception of the name “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” as used in the context of the challenged Bomberger article, including whether members of the public interpreted the name as a parody or sarcastic criticism of the NAACP, or whether it instead was viewed as a real name or real organization thereby creating a likelihood of confusion or dilution of one or more of the NAACP Marks. 20. The Radiance Site presents its visitors with an opportunity to donate to Radiance. An orange box containing the word “Donate” appeared on Radiance Site webpages, through which Radiance solicits and receives donations of money for its organization. 21. The TooManyAborted Site presents its visitors with the opportunity to donate to Radiance or sponsor outdoor billboards with anti-abortion messaging. For additional fees, the TooManyAborted Site offers other services related to billboards, such as licensing of artwork, research, content creation, and the opportunity to finance placement of a state-specific antiabortion webpage. Visitors can initiate a financial transaction with Radiance through the TooManyA-borted Site by submitting their contact information. Radiance then contacts the interested party to confirm the details and sends a license agreement specifying the services to be rendered along with payment and invoicing terms. 22. Radiance has erected billboards in seven states, along with seven state-specific anti-abortion webpag-es. Seven different messages have appeared on billboards. The billboards also include a reference to the TooManyAborted Site as well as a sponsorship tagline identifying Radiance and any sponsoring organization. The seven state-specific webpages appear under the “The Impact” section of the Too-Many Aborted Site. 28. None of Radiance’s billboard artwork has displayed any of the NAACP Marks or has included the phrase “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People.” None of the NAACP Marks or “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” has appeared on any webpage accessed via the “Take Action” menu item, including the “Expose the Lies. Sponsor a Billboard” page. II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction in this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1388(a) to hear claims arising out of federal trademark laws.. This Court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because there is citizenship diversity between the parties and the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Plaintiffs because Radiance’s principal place of business is, in Virginia and Bomberger is domiciled in Virginia. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because the NAACP conducts activities and derives revenue in Virginia, and has a substantial number of chapters and members throughout the Commonwealth. 3. Venue is proper under § 1391 in any judicial district in which the defendant is properly subject to personal jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and-(c). Venue is proper pursuant to § 1391 because a substantial part of the acts giving rise to the claims occurred in this District, and Defendant has sufficient connection with the Eastern District of Virginia. Trademark Infringement 4. Pursuant to Section 32(l)(a) the Lanham Act, “[a]ny person who shall, without the consent of the registrant — use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive ... shall be liable in a civil action by the registrant....” 15 U.S.C. § 1114. 5. Pursuant to Section 43(a) the Lan-ham Act, “[a]ny person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or •misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which — is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person ... shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1). 6. The party making the allegations of infringement has the burden of proof to present evidence in support of the allegations set forth in its complaint and to prove those allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. Tie Tech, Inc. v. Kinedyne Corp., 296 F.3d 778, 783 (9th Cir.2002); Eurotech, Inc. v. Cosmos European Travels Aktiengesellschaft, 213 F.Supp.2d 612, 628 (E.D.Va.2002). 7. To establish an infringement violation of the Lanham Act for either a registered mark under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 or an unregistered mark under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(h), “a plaintiff must prove: (1) that it owns a valid mark; (2) that the defendant used the mark ‘in commerce’ and without the plaintiffs authorization; (3) that the defendant used the mark (or an imitation of it) ‘in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising’ of goods or services; and (4) that the defendant’s use of the mark is likely to confuse consumers.” Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 676 F.3d 144, 152 (4th Cir.2012) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1114(a)). 8. To establish trademark infringement liability under Virginia law, a plaintiff must prove that a defendant “uses in a manner likely to cause a consumer confusion, mistake, or deception as to the source or origin of any goods or services, without the consent of the owner of a registered mark, any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of such goods or services.” Va. Code ANN. § 59.1-92.12© (West 2011). 9.For a trademark to be used “in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services,” the alleged infringer must offer goods or services in commerce under the trademark without the consent of the mark holder. OBH, Inc. v: Spotlight Magazine, Inc., 86 F.Supp.2d 176, 186 (W.D.N.Y.2000). 10. “Services” are defined as “á wide variety of non-commercial public and civic benefits,” including donation solicitation, event hosting, information dissemination and campaigning. Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 309, 314 (4th Cir.2005). 11. The NAACP has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiffs used the NAACP Marks in connection with the offering for sale of services because the marks appeared in connection with the NAACP’s information services as well as Radiance’s fundraising, sponsorship and outreach efforts. 12. Likelihood of confusion involves potential consumers being confused about the source of services as well as their sponsorship. Rosetta Stone Ltd., 676 F.3d at 157. Likelihood of confusion exists if the consuming public assumes upon viewing a mark that the service offered under the mark is associated with a different service represented by a similar mark. Harlem Wizards Entm’t Basketball, Inc. v. NBA Props., Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1084, 1094 (D.N.J.1997). 13. The Fourth Circuit “has articulated at least nine factors that generally are relevant to the ‘likelihood of confusion’ inquiry: (1) the strength or distinctiveness of the plaintiffs mark as actually used in the marketplace; (2) the similarity of the two marks to consumers; (3) the similarity of the goods or services that the marks identify; (4) the similarity of the facilities used by the markholders; (5) the similarity of advertising used by the mark-holders; (6) the defendant’s intent; (7) actual confusion; (8) the quality of the defendant’s product; and (9) the sophistication of the consuming public.” George & Co., LLC v. Imagination Entm’t Ltd., 575 F.3d 383, 393 (4th Cir.2009). 14. Parody is not an affirmative defense to trademark infringement “but only another factor to be considered in determining the likelihood of confusion.... The keystone of parody is imitation, but must convey two simultaneous' — • and contradictory — messages: ‘that it is the original, but also that it is not the original and is instead a parody.’ ” World Wrestling Fed’n Entm’t Inc. v. Big Dog Holdings, Inc., 280 F.Supp.2d 413, 431 (W.D.Pa.2003) (quoting Nike, Inc. v. Just Did It Enters., 6 F.3d 1225, 1228 (7th Cir.1993)). 15. First Amendment concerns regarding freedom of speech and expression must be balanced against trademark rights and remedies, and an alleged infringer’s use of a mark as part of a communicative message is entitled to First Amendment protection so long as it does not mislead or create confusion. Westchester Media v. PRL USA Holdings, Inc., 214 F.3d 658, 672 (5th Cir.2000). 16.The NAACP has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that consumers are likely to be confused about whether “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” is sponsored, authorized by or otherwise affiliated with the NAACP, and there is a high likelihood of confusion involving Radiance’s use of “NAACP” and a colorable imitation of “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.” The NAACP has not established that the relevant confusion factors are indicative of any likelihood that consumers would be confused about the origin or sponsorship of any services offered under Radiance’s use of “Image Awards” and the Scales of Justice Seal. Trademark Dilution 17. Pursuant to Section 43(c)(1) of the Lanham Act, “the owner of a famous mark that is distinctive, inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, shall be entitled to an injunction against another person who, at any time after the owner’s mark has become famous, commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury.” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1). 18. Dilution by tarnishment denotes an “association arising from the similarity between a mark or a trade name and a famous mark' that harms the reputation of the famous mark.” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). A trademark may be tarnished when it is “portrayed in an unwholesome or unsavory context,” resulting in “the public [¶]... ] associating] the lack of quality or lack of prestige in the defendant’s goods with the plaintiffs unrelated goods.” Deere & Co. v. MTD Prods., 41 F.3d 39, 43 (2d Cir.1994). 19. “To state a prima facie dilution claim ... the plaintiff must show the following: (1) that the plaintiff owns a famous mark that is distinctive; (2) that the defendant has commenced using a mark in commerce that allegedly is diluting the famous mark; (3) that a similarity between the defendant’s mark and the famous mark gives rise to an association between the marks; and (4) that the association is likely to impair the distinctiveness of the famous mark or likely to harm the reputation of the famous mark.” Rosetta Stone Ltd., 676 F.3d at 168 (citing Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252, 264-65 (4th Cir.2007)). 20. The fair use defense to trademark dilution allows description and criticism that incidentally involves the use of a trademark. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(A). Fair use may take the form of a nominative use or a parody. 21. A nominative use occurs when a defendant uses a plaintiffs mark to . identify the plaintiffs own goods and “makes it clear to consumers that the plaintiff, not the defendant, is' the source of the trademarked product or service'.” Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Lendingtree, Inc., 425 F.3d 211, 220 (3d Cir.2005). 22. An unauthorized use of a trademark for news reporting and news commentary as well as noncommercial use are exempt from liability for dilution by tarnishment. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3). 23.The NAACP has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiffs engaged in conduct that constitutes dilution by tarnishment because Plaintiffs’ use of “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” is likely to harm the reputation of the “NAACP” and “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People” marks as it insinuates a stance of abortion that the NAACP has deliberately avoided. Plaintiffs have demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that they engaged in a nominative use of “Image Awards” and the Scales of Justice Seal, which did not result in dilution by tarnishment. Consumer Survey Evidence 24. “A party introducing a consumer survey bears the burden of establishing that it was conducted in accordance with accepted principles of survey research, i.e., that (1) a proper universe was examined; (2) a representative sample was drawn from that universe; (3) the mode of questioning the interviewees was correct; (4) the persons conducting the survey were recognized experts; (5) the data gathered was accurately reported; and (6) the sample design, the questionnaire, and the interviewing were in accordance with generally accepted standards of procedure and statistics.” Harlem Wizards, 952 F.Supp. at 1098. 25. Although Radiance expert Dr. Tracy Tuten opined that Dr. Ostberg’s survey (“Ostberg Survey”) suffers from reliability and validity issues such as improper sampling and lack of controls, the Court finds that the NAACP has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the Ostberg Survey is reliable. Remedies 26. A party seeking an injunction must demonstrate “(1) it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) remedies available at law are inadequate; (3) the balance of the hardships favors the party seeking the injunction; and (4) the public interest would not be dis-served by the injunction.” PBM Products, LLC v. Mead Johnson & Co., 639 F.3d 111, 126 (4th Cir.2011) (citing eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, 547 U.S. 388, 391, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006)). 27. The NAACP has established that it is éníitled to a permanent injunction because it suffered irreparable reputational harm, the public has been confused or misled, and such an injunction would not constitute content-based restriction on free speech. 28. A plaintiff may recover monetary damages based on profits obtained from the activity constituting a violation of the Lanham Act. See generally Otis Clapp & Son, Inc., v. Filmore Vitamin Co., 754 F.2d 738, 744 (7th Cir.1985). The NAACP has not established that it is entitled to any gross profits obtained from Plaintiffs’ infringement or dilution. 29. 30. Reasonable attorney fees may be awarded in “exceptional cases” where the defendant’s conduct was malicious, fraudulent, willful or deliberate in nature and the defendant acted in bad faith. Retail Servs., Inc. v. Freebies Publ’g, 364 F.3d 535, 550 (4th Cir.2004). 31. The NAACP has not established by clear and convincing evidence that Radiance or Bomberger acted in bad faith ■ or engaged in conduct that was malicious, deliberate, willful or fraudulent to support its request for attorney fees. III. DISCUSSION A. Plaintiffs’ Request for Declaratory Relief Plaintiffs brought a declaratory judgment action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 by which they seek a declaration that they have not violated any rights of the NAACP regarding their trademarks. The Declaratory Judgment Act authorizes federal courts to issue declaratory judgments to “declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration,” except “with respect to Federal taxes.” 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). A declaratory judgment is appropriate “when the judgment will serve a useful purpose in clarifying and settling the legal relations in issue, and ... when it will terminate and afford relief from the uncertainty, insecurity, and controversy giving rise to the proceeding.” Centennial Life Ins. Co. v. Poston, 88 F.3d 255, 256 (4th Cir.1996) (quoting Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Quarles, 92 F.2d 321, 325 (4th Cir.1937)). A court’s authority to grant a declaratory judgment is discretionary. Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 282, 115 S.Ct. 2137, 132 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995). “District courts ‘have great latitude in determining whether to assert jurisdiction over declaratory judgment actions,’ but should refuse to entertain a declaratory judgment only for good cause.” First Nationwide Mortgage Corp. v. FISI Madison, LLC, 219 F.Supp.2d 669, 672 (D.Md.2002) (citing Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Quarles, 92 F.2d 321, 324 (4th Cir.1937)). Declaratory judgment actions are appropriate to allow “the uncertain party to gain relief from the insecurity caused by a potential suit,” United Capitol Ins. Co. v. Kapiloff 155 F.3d 488, 494 (4th Cir.1998), but are disfavored when filed in anticipation of a certain or imminent lawsuit to secure a more favorable forum or procedural posture. See Learning Network, Inc. v. Discovery Commc’ns, Inc., 11 Fed.Appx. 297, 301 (4th Cir.2001) (“It has long been established that courts look with disfavor upon races to the courthouse and forum shopping. Such procedural fencing is a factor that counsels against exercising jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action.”). Plaintiffs request declaratory judgment on four separate issues: (1) that they did not infringe any NAACP trademarks under either the Lanham Act or common law; (2) that neither Radiance nor Bom-berger tarnished or diluted any famous mark owned by the NAACP; (3) that Radiance and Bomberger’s use of marks of the NAACP did not constitute unfair competition or palming off; and (4) that their use of the NAACP’s trademarks was protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. ’ In view of the analysis of the trademark infringement and trademark dilution counterclaims herein, the Court finds that Radiance has failed to establish that it is entitled to declaratory relief. Declaratory judgment will not serve to settle the legal issues in this case because the NAACP has filed counterclaims that require the Court to analyze and resolve the infringement and dilution matters in controversy. Because declaratory relief will not terminate the proceeding, the Court has good cause to find declaratory judgment inappropriate. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief is DENIED. B. Defendant’s Counterclaims for Trademark Infringement and Dilution i. Counts I, II and IV: Trademark Infringement To establish a claim for trademark infringement and unfair competition, the NAACP must show that it possesses a valid, protectable mark used by Radiance and Bomberger in commerce in connection with the offering for sale of services in a manner likely to confuse consumers. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125(a); Rosetta Stone Ltd., 676 F.3d at 152; Lamparello, 420 F.3d at 313. Virginia’s common law standards for trademark infringement and unfair competition mirror the Lanham Act test “because both address the likelihood of confusion as to the source of the goods or services involved.” Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc., 43 F.3d at 930 n. 10 (citations omitted). Accordingly, the Court will address Counts I, II and IV together. Count III, the counterclaim for trademark dilution, will be addressed independently. Counts I, II and IV assert that Plaintiffs infringed the NAACP Marks through the manner in which they used “NAACP,” “Image Awards” and the Scales of Justice Seal as well as a variation of “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People” in the January 2013 Article. The parties do not dispute that the NAACP possessed valid trademarks or that Radiance and Bomberger used those certain marks “in commerce.” The two key issues are whether Plaintiffs used the NAACP Marks in connection with the offering for sale of services and whether any likelihood of consumer confusion exists. Based on the following analysis, Plaintiffs’ use of “NAACP” as well as “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” instead of “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People” in all three website postings of the January 2013 Article constitutes trademark infringement as charged in Counts I, II and IV. a. In connection with the offering for sale of services The first issue the Court must resolve is whether Radiance and Bomberger used the NAACP Marks in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services. The requirement that an alleged infringer’s use of the mark holder’s trademark be made in connection with goods or services “does not require the infringer to actually cause goods or services to be placed into the stream of commerce. Rather, all that is needed is that the trademark violation be ‘in connection’ with any goods or services.” Jews For Jesus v. Brodsky, 993 F.Supp. 282, 309 (D.N.J.1998) aff'd, 159 F.3d 1351 (3d Cir.1998) (citations omitted). Services are defined as “a wide variety of non-commercial public and civic benefits.” Lamparello, 420 F.3d at 314. “Services” may consist of noncommercial benefits including donation solicitation, event hosting, campaigning and dissemination of educational information though public advocacy. Cf. United We Stand America, Inc. v. United We Stand, America New York, 128 F.3d 86, 90 (2d Cir.1997) (holding that the defendant’s political activities, including political organizing, soliciting and endorsing candidates, and distributing press releases and literature, were “services”). “Services” may also consist of commercial benefits such as an organization providing hyperlinks to other websites offering goods or services. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359, 363 (4th Cir.2001) (hereinafter “PETA ”). Plaintiffs’ conduct is subject to trademark infringement liability because they used the NAACP Marks in connection with the information services of both parties. The connection with the NAACP’s services is evidenced by the fact that the January 2013 Article, written and posted by Bomberger, could be accessed through a. Google search for “NAACP,” diverting Internet users to Radiance’s article as opposed to the NAACP’s websites. See id. at 366 (holding that the use of a trademark is in connection with goods and services if it “is likely to prevent Internet users from reaching the [mark holder’s] own Internet web site” and services); see also Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. v. Bucci, 97 CIV. 0629(KMW), 1997 WL 133313, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 1997) aff'd, 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir.1998) (“Prospective users of plaintiffs services who mistakenly access defendant’s web site may fail to continue to search for plaintiffs own home page, due to anger, frustration, or the belief that plaintiffs home page does not exist.”). The connection with Radiance’s own information services is established because Radiance . provided information to persuade Internet users that abortion is “wrong.” Compare id. (“[Defendant offers informational services for use in convincing people that certain activities, including the use of plaintiffs services, are morally wrong. In this way, defendant offers his own set of services, and his use of plaintiffs mark is in connection with the distribution of those services over the Internet.”). Additionally, liability under the Lanham Act may be imposed on Plaintiffs for their unauthorized use of the NAACP Marks as part of social commentary or criticism for which they solicit donations and sponsorship. The January 2013 Article was posted on the Radiance Site and the TooMan-yAborted Site adjacent to orange boxes marked “Donate,” which hyperlinked to the “Donate Today” webpage with information on making contributions to Radiance through PayPal. Also, all three postings of the January 2013 Article provided hyperlinks to the TooManyAborted Site, which presented its visitors with the opportunity to support or sponsor the erection of anti-abortion billboards through the “Take Action” webpage. Too-ManyAborted Site visitors may initiate fee-based transactions to secure billboard artwork and licensing services for $950 and state-specific webpage content creation for $950 Furthermore, the in connection with the offering for sale of services requirement is established by Bomberger’s fundraising activity in relation to the parties’ dispute. Compare Planned Parenthood, 1997 WL 133313, at *6 (“[Defendant has testified that he solicits contributions on his ‘Catho-lie Radio’ radio show and has solicited contributions on the air in connection with the instant lawsuit... .Courts have found that fund-raising activities may bring a defendant’s actions within the scope of the Lanham Act.”). Upon receipt of the NAACP’s cease and desist letter on January 28, 2013, Bomberger e-mailed Joseph A. Brinek about fundraising for a public relations effort to generate publicity for Radiance’s dispute with the NAACP. This effort included a relaunch of the TooMan-yAborted Site on February 1, 2013, the same day that the January 2013 Article was posted on the TooManyAborted Site. The Court finds that there is a sufficient nexus between Plaintiffs’ use of the NAACP Marks and the offering of information services, donation solicitation and fee-based billboard services such that the marks were used in connection with the offering for sale of services. b. Likelihood of consumer confusion The second issue the Court will address is whether Plaintiffs’ use of the NAACP Marks was likely to confuse consumers: Under the Lanham Act, a registered trademark holder has a right to prevent another’s use of a trademark that is “likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.” In other words, an unauthorized use of a trademark infringes the trademark holder’s rights if it is likely to confuse an “ordinary consumer” as to the source or sponsorship of the goods. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. L & L Wings, Inc., 962 F.2d 316, 318 (4th Cir.1992) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a)). Likelihood of confusion is an “inherently factual issue.” Petro Stopping Ctrs., L.P. v. James River Petroleum Inc., 130 F.3d 88, 92 (4th Cir.1997). The Court’s analysis to determine the likelihood of consumer confusion in a trademark infringement action includes the consideration of nine non-exclusive and non-mandatory factors: (1) the strength or distinctiveness of the plaintiffs mark as actually used in the marketplace; (2) the similarity of the two marks to consumers; (3) the similarity of the goods or services that the marks identify; (4) the similarity of the facilities used by the markholders; (5) the similarity of advertising used by the markholders; (6) the defendant’s intent; (7) actual confusion; (8) the quality of the defendant’s product; and (9) the sophistication of the consuming public. George & Co., LLC, 575 F.3d at 393. Because these nine factors are not all of equal importance and not all factors are relevant in every case, they serve as a guide rather than “a rigid formula for infringement.” Id. The Court finds that the first factor, strength or distinctiveness of the trademark, weighs in favor of a likelihood of confusion as to all of the NAACP Marks. The parties do not dispute the strength of marks “NAACP” and “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.” “Image Awards” and the Scales of Justice Seal marks are likewise strong marks. The NAACP has employed the Seales of Justice Seal to identify its organization since its founding in 1909. “Image Awards” is a federally registered mark that has been used for over forty years in relation to the NAACP’s annual awards broadcast. The NAACP Marks are strong marks as a result of the NAACP’s efforts to cultivate a respectable reputation and protect its intellectual property rights. Since “[generally, the stronger the mark, the greater the likelihood that consumers will be confused by competing uses of the mark,” the fact that the NAACP Marks are strong signifies that they are well-recognized and tend to identify services provided under the mark as emanating from the NAACP. George & Co., LLC, 575 F.3d at 393. The second factor, the similarity of the marks, weighs in favor of likelihood of confusion as well. “When considering the similarity of two marks, one must compare the appearance, sound and meaning of the marks, as well as the manner in which they are used.” Taj Mahal Enters., Ltd. v. Trump, 745 F.Supp. 240, 247 (D.N.J.1990). Marks “are confusingly similar if ordinary consumers would likely conclude that” the services presented under the marks “share a common source, affiliation, connection or sponsorship.” Fisons Horticulture, Inc. v. Vigoro Indus., Inc., 30 F.3d 466, 477 (3d Cir.1994). Plaintiffs used “NAACP,” “Image Awards” and the Scales of Justice Seal in an identical manner as the marks have been used by the NAACP. The parties stipulated that “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” closely resembles “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.” The NAACP Marks and the marks employed by Plaintiffs are highly similar if not identical and “[t]he high degree of. similarity between the marks weighs in favor of the likelihood of confusion among Internet users.” OBH, Inc., 86 F.Supp.2d at 188. The third factor, the similarity of the services the marks identify, again weighs in favor of likelihood of confusion. The NAACP and Radiance have incorporated “NAACP,” “Image Awards” and the Scales of Justice Seal in references to the NAACP’s services. “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” does not refer to the actual services of the NAACP, but refers to information services of a fictitious advocacy association targeted at people of color, which is similar to the services the NAACP provides. The fourth and fifth factors, the similarity of the facilities and the similarity of advertising used by the mark holders, support a finding of likelihood of confusion. “When considering the similarity of facilities, courts are trying to determine if confusion is likely based on ‘how and to whom the respective goods of the parties are sold,’ and the key question is whether ‘both products [are] sold in the same channels of trade.’ ” Rosetta Stone Ltd., 676 F.3d at 155. The parties stipulate that they use the Internet and billboards to engage in public outreach. The parties also stipulate to targeting the African American community. Additionally, Radiance and the NAACP reached the same audience — namely, Internet users searching for webpages displaying “NAACP.” Because the parties targeted and reached the same consumers through the sahie channels, this market overlap creates “a stronger likelihood of confusion.” Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. Check Point Software Techs., Inc., 269 F.3d 270, 289 (3rd Cir.2001); accord Petfumebay.com Inc. v. eBay Inc., 506 F.3d 1165, 1174 (9th Cir.2007) (“[T]he Web, as a marketing channel, is particularly susceptible to a likelihood of confusion since ... it allows for competing marks to be encountered at the same time, on the same screen.”). As for the sixth factor that assesses the alleged infringer’s intent, the Court finds that Radiance and Bomberger intended to confuse the public through the use of “NAACP” in close proximity to “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People.” “[T]he relevant intent in trademark cases is not merely an intent to profit ... but an ‘intent to confuse the buying public.’ ” Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 962 F.2d at 321 (quoting Pizzeria Uno Corp. v. Temple, 747 F.2d 1522, 1535 (4th Cir.1984)). Generally, intent is evidenced by an alleged infringer’s efforts to make his use of the mark resemble the mark holder’s use in order to pass his services off as the mark holder’s services. See Pizzeria Uno, 741 F.2d at 1535 (“[0]ne intending to profit from another’s reputation generally attempts to make his signs, advertisements, etc., to resemble the other’s so as deliberately to induce confusion.”); Best & Co. v. Miller, 167 F.2d 374, 377 (2d Cir.1948) (“If the defendant selects a trademark or trade name similar to the plaintiffs with intent to palm off his wares as those of the plaintiff, proof of his intent may be strong evidence of ... the likelihood of confusion.”). Plaintiffs assert that its use of “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” was meant as a parody to convey criticism of the NAACP. As will be discussed, the Court is not persuaded that “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” is a parody. Instead, the Court recognizes that Bomberger titled the January 2013 Article “NAACP: National Association for the Abortion of Colored People,” implying that the acronym “NAACP” stood for his designation as opposed to the actual name of Defendant’s organization. Nowhere in the January 2013 Article on the Radiance Site or the TooManyAborted Site does the NAACP’s actual name or web address appear. Plaintiffs did not include any signal or suggestion that the confusingly similar name, “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People,” was anything other than the name of a real organization or the name of the NAACP. However, the NAACP has not presented persuasive evidence that Radiance or Bom-berger used “Image Awards” or the Scales of Justice Seal with any intent to confuse. “Image Awards” was used only twice in the January 2013 Article, each time in the context of the NAACP’s annual event. The Scales of Justice Seal only appeared on the LifeNews.com posting of the January 2013 Article at the selection of a third party. The Court does not find intent to confuse regarding these marks. The seventh factor, actual confusion, offers the best evidence of likelihood of confusion if consumers were actually confused by an infringer’s use of a protected trademark. See Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc., 43 F.3d at 937 (noting that the actual confusion factor is “entitled to substantial weight as it provides the most compelling evidence of likelihood of confusion”). Actual confusion can be established by anecdotal evidence and survey evidence because “[b]oth types of evidence are relevant, and neither category is necessarily required to prove actual confusion.” Rosetta Stone Ltd., 676 F.3d at 156. There is anecdotal evidence of actual confusion. The NAACP received calls after Internet users observed “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People.” Eric Wingerter, the NAACP Vice President for Communications and Digital Media, testified about inquiries regarding the NAACP’s possible name or mission change: QUESTION: Are you aware of any damage or harm to the NAACP’s reputation caused by that Google alert or by the web page that line is taken to by clicking on the heading of that alert? [WINGERTER]: I know that it caused confusion among some members.... QUESTION: And can you explain for the Court what the nature of the confusion was that you became aware of? [WINGERTER]: Well, my office receives a number of phone calls. Because we are the communications department, we have a lot of public folks calling in asking us — the nice ones were asking us why we were supporting abortion of people of color, and then there were some angrier ones as well. QUESTION: And what were the angrier ones saying? [WINGERTER]: Just talking about, you know, I used to be a supporter of the NAACP. You had a proud history during the civil rights movement and I can’t believe that you are supporting the genocide of black babies. This anecdotal evidence demonstrates that the January 2013 Article went beyond criticizing the NAACP’s position on abortion. The January 2013 Article employed the NAACP Marks in a manner that confused the public regarding whether a pro-abortion position was represented by trademarks ascribed to the NAACP. There is survey evidence of actual confusion caused by Plaintiffs’ use of “NAACP” and “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People.” Courts have considered survey evidence in their determination of the existence of actual confusion: Survey evidence may demonstrate evidence of actual confusion but only to the extent “that the survey mirrors the real world setting which can create an instance of actual confusion.” 3 J. McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 23.01[3][a]. A party introducing a consumer survey bears the burden of establishing that it was conducted in accordance with accepted principles of survey research, i.e., that (1) a proper universe was examined; (2) a representative sample was drawn from that universe; (3) the mode of questioning the interviewees was correct; (4) the persons conducting the survey were recognized experts; (5) the data gathered was accurately reported; and (6) the sample design, the questionnaire and the interviewing were in accordance with generally accepted standards of procedure and statistics. Harlem Wizards, 952 F.Supp. at 1098 (citing Nat’l Football League Props., Inc. v. New Jersey Giants, Inc., 637 F.Supp. 507, 513-514 (D.N.J.1986)). Dr. Ostberg used reliable methods 'consistent with traditional survey methodology to define the universe of relevant respondents and he employed screening questions to identify the respondents and determine their interests. The Ostberg Survey revealed that 8% of respondents believed there was an affiliation between the people who use the term “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” and the real NAACP, and 5% of respondents believed that the NAACP’s permission or approval was required to use that term. Ten percent of respondents believed the initials NAACP actually stood for “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” or some other name containing the word “abortion.” Another 10% believed that the “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” was the name of an actual organization or group. The NAACP did not present evidence of actual confusion regarding the “Image Awards” or Scales of Justice Seal marks. The eighth factor, assessing the quality of the defendant’s product, is not relevant and does not support or preclude a finding of likelihood of confusion. Neither the quality of the parties’ services nor their websites can be compared. See OBH, Inc., 86 F.Supp.2d at 189 (“[T]he Court cannot compare the two web sites in terms of superior or inferior quality.”). The ninth factor, the sophistication of the consuming public, weighs in favor of likelihood of confusion. “If the typical consumer in the relevant market is sophisticated in the use of — or possesses an expertise regarding' — -a particular product, such sophistication or expertise may be pertinent in determining the likelihood of confusion.” Sara Lee Corp. v. Kayser-Roth Corp., 81 F.3d 455, 467 (4th Cir.1996) (citing Perini Corp. v. Perini Constr., Inc., 915 F.2d 121, 127-28 (4th Cir.1990)). Also, “[i]t is widely accepted as true that consumers are less likely to be confused about the origin of specific goods or services if such goods are expensive because the amount of care and attention expended by consumers increases proportionately as the price of the desired goods or services increases.” Harlem Wizards, 952 F.Supp. at 1097. Here, both parties are non-profit organizations that offer no-cost information services to the public. Because the average consumer would not make a time or financial investment to access the parties’ information services, the consumer is less likely to take care in investigating the author or sponsor of articles using the NAACP Marks. Moreover, potential donors of Radiance and the NAACP do not have to be sophisticated: Persons wishing to donate are not likely to analyze in depth the credentials of the charity. Rather, they are more likely to be generally familiar with the works of a charity for a cause they support and, when solicited, will contribute to such a cause. Under these circumstances, potential contributors may easily confuse two ... charities that resemble one another in name and function. Am. Diabetes Ass’n, Inc. v. Nat’l Diabetes Ass’n, 533 F.Supp. 16, 21 (E.D.Pa.1981) aff'd, 681 F.2d 804 (3d Cir.1982). Balancing all nine factors, the Court concludes the NAACP has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiffs • used “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” and “NAACP” in the January 2013 Article as posted on the Radiance Site, the TooMan-yAborted Site, and LifeNews.com in a manner highly likely to cause consumer confusion. Radiance and the NAACP used similar and identical strong marks to reference similar services within similar facilities, reaching the same unsophisticated Internet users. Radiance and Bomber-ger achieved their intent to cause consumer confusion through their placement of “NAACP” in close proximity to “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People.” The relevant factors weigh powerfully in favor of a finding of likelihood of confusion induced by Plaintiffs’ use of “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” and “NAACP,” and the Court finds that the NAACP has met its burden of proof to establish trademark infringement. The Court finds that there is no likelihood of confusion related to “Image Awards” and the Scales of Justice Seal. These marks were used as a point of reference, and there is scant evidence of intended or actual confusion regarding any use of these marks. The likelihood of confusion factors as applied to “Image Awards” and the Scales of Justice Seal favor Plaintiffs; thus the NAACP has failed to sustain its burden on its trademark infringement claim for “Image Awards” or the Scales of Justice Seal. c. Parody Plaintiffs attempt to defend against a finding of likelihood of confusion by arguing that its use of “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” is a parody of the NAACP. Plaintiffs argue that Internet users would not be confused or misled into believing that the January 2013 Article was actually sponsored by the NAACP. The Court finds this argument unavailing. A “parody” is defined as a “simple form of entertainment conveyed by juxtaposing the irreverent representation of the trademark with the idealized image created by the mark’s owner.” L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc., 811 F.2d 26, 34 (1st Cir.1987). “Parody” can also be defined as “appropriate[ing] commonly known elements of a prior work to make humorous or critical comment on that same work” being parodied. Dr. Seuss Enter., LP. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 924 F.Supp. 1559, 1567 n. 6 (S.D.Cal.1996) (referencing Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 580, 114 S.Ct. 1164, 127 L.Ed.2d 500 (1994)). The Fourth Circuit has previously held: For trademark purposes, a “parody” is defined as a simple form of entertainment conveyed by juxtaposing the irreverent representation of the trademark with the idealized image created by the mark’s owner. A parody must convey two simultaneous — and contradictory— messages: that it is the original, but also that it is not the original and is instead a parody. This second message must not only differentiate the alleged parody from the original but must also communicate some articulable element of satire, ridicule, joking, or amusement. Thus, a parody relies upon a difference from the original mark, presumably a humorous difference, in order to produce its desired effect. Louis Vuitton Malletier, 507 F.3d at 260 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The finding of a successful parody only influences the way in which the [likelihood of confusion] factors are applied. Indeed, it becomes apparent that an effective parody will actually diminish the likelihood of confusion, while an ineffective parody does not.” Id. at 261. In Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, the Fourth Circuit discussed elements of a successful parody to undermine a finding of a likelihood of confusion, including jokes, mockery, irreverence, critique on seller or buyer, and presence of other parodied goods or services: [T]he juxtaposition of the similar and dissimilar — the irreverent representation and the idealized image of an LVM handbag — immediately conveys a joking and amusing parody. The furry little “Chewy Vuiton” imitation, as something to be chewed by a dog, pokes fun at the elegance and expensiveness of a LOUIS VUITTON handbag, which must not be chewed by a dog. The LVM handbag is provided for the most elegant and well-to-do cel