t competing goods, a `strong possibility' thateither party may expand his business to compete with theother will weigh in favor of finding that the present use isinfringing." Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 354 (citing Restatement ofTorts S 731(b)). This factor therefore weighs in appellants'favor as the potential exists that in the future Ratzenberger'sendorsement of other beers would be confused with hisalleged endorsement of the beers sold at Host's bars.[20] A reasonable jury could conclude that most of the fac-tors weigh in appellants' favor and that Host's alleged con-duct creates at least the likelihood of consumer confusion.Whether appellants' Lanham Act claim should succeed, ofcourse, is a matter for the jury. Accordingly, we reverse thedismissal of the unfair competition claim and remand.D. Exclusion of Survey EvidenceIn their opposition to Paramount's summary judgmentmotion, appellants offered into evidence the results of a con-sumer survey taken in the vicinity of the Cheers bars at theCleveland and Kansas City airports. The district court refusedto admit the evidence, saying that the evidence was "not agood survey."[21] As the record stood, the refusal was an abuse of discre-tion. In trademark cases, surveys are to be admitted as longas they are conducted according to accepted principles and arerelevant. E & J Gallo Winery, 967 F.2d at 1280; see also Pru-dential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Gibraltar Fin. Corp., 694 F.2d1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 1982). Challenges to survey methodol-ogy go to the weight given the survey, not its admissibility.Prudential Ins., 694 F.2d at 1156. However, because of thepaucity of the record, upon remand, the parties should havethe opportunity respectively to lay a foundation for the admis-sion of the survey or to challenge the adequacy of the founda-tion. 12366E. Exclusion of Expert TestimonyPrior to the first appeal in this case the district court issueda Preclusion Order barring the in...
