to their endorsement more likely.")[18] The seventh factor is defendant's intent in selectingthe mark. Appellants have alleged facts that could give rise toan inference that Host intended to confuse customers as toWendt and Ratzenberger's sponsorship or endorsement of theCheers bars by creating robots with their physical characteris-tics. See AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 354 (9thCir. 1979) ("When the alleged infringer knowingly adopts amark similar to another's, reviewing courts presume that thedefendant can accomplish his purpose: that is, that the publicwill be deceived."). In their opposition to summary judgmentappellants submitted evidence that Host intentionallydesigned the animatronic figures to resemble Wendt and Rat-zenberger and that it recognized from the outset that the valueof the association with Wendt and Ratzenberger themselveswas "a major drawing card of the Cheers concept. " Afterbeing advised that appellants would not agree to the use oftheir likenesses, Host altered the robots cosmetically, namedthem "Hank" and "Bob,"2 and refused to recast them into a"friendly neighborhood couple," as they were advised to doby Paramount. Based on this evidence, an inference can beraised that Host intended to exploit the appellants' celebrityby confusion as to the similarity between the figures and theappellants.[19] We have found that the eighth factor, likelihood ofexpansion of the product lines, "does not appear apposite toa celebrity endorsement case," White, 971 F.2d at 1401. Here,however, Ratzenberger has offered evidence that he wouldlike to appear in advertisements for beer and has declinedoffers from small breweries in order to be available to a large_________________________________________________________________2 Until that point "Hank" was referred to in the record as "Cliff" and"Bob" as "Norm." 12365brewery. "Inasmuch as a trademark owner is afforded greaterprotection agains...
