n inference that Host intended to confuse cus-tomers as to their sponsorship or endorsement of the Cheersbars by creating robots with their physical characteristics.Based on the evidence in opposition to summary judgment, aninference could have been raised that Host intended to exploittheir celebrity by confusion as to the similarity between thefigures and Wendt and Ratzenberger.[19] The factor of likelihood of expansion of product linesweighed in Wendt's and Ratzenberger's favor as the potentialexisted that in the future, Ratzenberger's endorsement ofother beers would be confused with his alleged endorsementof the beers sold at Host's bars.[20] A reasonable jury could have concluded that most ofthe factors weighed in favor of Wendt and Ratzenberger, andthat Host's conduct created at least the likelihood of consumerconfusion. Whether their Lanham Act claim should succeedwas a matter for the jury.[21] In trademark cases, surveys are to be admitted as longas they are conducted according to accepted principles and arerelevant. Challenges to methodology go to the weight given 12353the survey, not its admissibility. On remand, the partiesshould have the opportunity respectively to lay a foundationfor admission of the survey, or to challenge the adequacy ofthe foundation._________________________________________________________________COUNSELDavid A. Pash, Kinsella, Boesch, Fujikawa & Towle, LosAngeles, California, for the plaintiffs-appellants.William T. Rintala, Rintala, Smoot, Jaenicke & Rees, LosAngeles, California, for the defendants-appellees.Robert S. Chapman, Greenberg, Glusker, Fields, Claman &Machtinger, Los Angeles, California, for the defendant-intervenor._________________________________________________________________OPINIONFLETCHER, Circuit Judge:Actors George Wendt and John Ratzenberger appeal thedistrict court's grant of summary judgment in favor of HostInternational, Inc. ("Host") and applicant ...
