Plaintiff provided stock market information and financial services to investment professionals on its website located at “streetevents.com.” Defendant provided similar services at its website located at “streetfusion.com.” Plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that defendant’s “streetfusion.com” name infringed its “streetevents.com” mark. The court held that plaintiff was not likely to succeed on the merits and denied its motion for a preliminary injunction. The court initially found it unclear which party was the senior user. Because it found that plaintiff had not established a likelihood of confusion, however, the court did not need to decide the issue of priority. Although the court found that the parties’ services and marketing channels were similar and the “similarity of marks” factor slightly favored plaintiff, the fact that the appearance of the marks was dissimilar in the context of the parties’ websites coupled with the weakness of plaintiff’s mark and the lack of meaningful actual confusion among purchasers were not enough to establish a likelihood of confusion.