WebMarketEdge

Trademark law has an eight part test to determine if two marks are confusingly similar. You always want to be on the look out for anecdotal evidence or any evidence of actual confusion. The 8 part test includes the balancing of the following factors, no one being controlling:

1. Strength of the priority mark: The stronger the mark (more unique, more advertised, less dilute) - the wider the field of protection around that mark. Geometric designs are clearly protectible trademarks and they do not need to be fancy or ornate to be protectible (take the NIKE swoosh for instance), but the simpler they are they more likely there are a lot of marks out there that look like them, making them more dilute and less strong. MOre famous marks are more likely to be infringed.
2. Proximity of the goods and services. The more similar the services or goods being offered by the mark the more likely there is confusion. So dog food and computers probably can have similar marks. Computer servicing companies might create more confusion if in addition to the services, the marks are similar.
3. Similarity of the mark: The more similar the marks - the more likely the confusion. We usually analyze similarity by sound, sight and meaning. While you r marks are similar, they are not identical. I would be more comfortable if there were a different number of circles (i.e. some number other than 3) but it helps that the orientation is different. Use of the different company names at all times with the circles helps to keep the marks dissimilar and cuts against infringement.
4. If the goods are not similar, then the likelihood the priority company will bridge the gap. While ATT is in the phone service business, given the nature of the development of communication technology it is not impossible to believe they could for instance go into the computer business. Therefore, ATT would not be a good choice for a computer service company. This is particularly a problem in service groups which could conceivably provide a wide range of services which mutate over the years based on need.
5. Actual confusion: If there is any evidence of actual confusion, then this is a very strong piece of evidence of likelihood of confusion. Misdirected calls, mail or questions re affiliation are a sign of this.
6. Intent to benefit for the priority mark holder’s good will: If the second user of the mark intended to benefit in any way from the priority user’s good will, this is strong evidence of infringement.
7. Disparate quality: If I am rolex and you are rovex and we both sell watches, only yours is a piece of junk, you are damaging my mark with the lousy quality. This would help my case getting you stopped, because in addition to confusion, the confusion is really damaging.
8. Sophistication of Consumers: The more sophisticated the consumers, the less likely the confusion. I am more likely to be confused grabbing a bottle of shampoo at drug store, than when I am purchasing a multi thousand dollar computer system. Given that your customers probably know you on a first hand basis, they are more sophisticated than most and this would cut against a finding of likelihood of confusion.