KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge:

In the fall of 1982, when the fancy of Georgia sports fans turned to thoughts of college football, Bill Laite Distributing Co. ("Laite"), a Macon, Georgia wholesaler of novelty beers, began marketing "Battlin' Bulldog Beer." The beer was sold in red-and-black cans bearing the portrayal of an English bulldog wearing a red sweater emblazoned with a black "G." The bulldog had bloodshot eyes, a football tucked under its right "arm," and a frothy beer stein in its left "hand."

Laite hoped that the "Battlin' Bulldog" would pile up yardage and score big points in the always-competitive alcoholic beverage market. Unfortunately, however, the pug-faced pooch was thrown for a loss by the University of Georgia Athletic Association, Inc. ("UGAA"), which obtained preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in federal district court based on the "likelihood of confusion" between the "Battlin' Bulldog" and the "University of Georgia Bulldog." Laite now cries "foul," arguing that (1) the "University of Georgia Bulldog" is not a valid trade or service mark worthy of protection, (2) the district court used the wrong factors in comparing the "Battlin' Bulldog" with the "University of Georgia Bulldog," and (3) the court's conclusion that the sale of "Battlin' Bulldog Beer" created a "likelihood of confusion" is clearly erroneous. After viewing a "replay" of the proceedings below, we conclude that no error was committed and affirm the judgment of the district court in all respects.

I. BACKGROUND

The University of Georgia's athletic teams have long used the nickname, "Bulldogs." In 1981, UGAA registered with the State of Georgia certain service marks incorporating the word "bulldog" or the portrayal of an English bulldog. One such service mark depicts an English bulldog wearing a sweater with a "G" emblazoned on it. See Office of Secretary of State, State of Georgia, Service Mark, File Reference No. S-4673 (application filed September 21, 1981; registration dated November 25, 1981). Another service mark depicts the word "BULLDOGS" in projecting block letters. See id. at No. S-4667 (application filed September 21, 1981; registration dated November 25, 1981). These marks were registered for use in connection with "services related to sports activities." UGAA also applied for federal registration of the marks. Similar unregistered trade and service marks have been used by UGAA in connection with the University of Georgia's athletic teams. The university's colors are red and black.

In October, 1982, Laite began distributing the red-and-black cans of "Battlin' Bulldog Beer" to stores in the Atlanta area and throughout Georgia. One side of the cans contained the portrayal of an English bulldog described earlier. The opposite side of the cans contained the words, "BATTLIN' BULLDOG BEER" (in prominent red block letters), and, "Not associated with the University of Georgia" (in small silver print). Laite previously had sought permission from UGAA to use an exact reproduction of the "University of Georgia Bulldog" on the cans, but such permission had been denied.

Upon learning of the appearance of "Battlin' Bulldog Beer" on the market, UGAA informed Laite that it believed the cans infringed its registered and unregistered marks, and demanded that Laite cease distributing the beer. When Laite refused, UGAA filed suit against Laite in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. UGAA sought actual and punitive damages, an accounting of Laite's profits from the sale of the beer, a declaration that Laite's use of UGAA's marks was unlawful, an injunction against further misuse of UGAA's marks, and costs and attorney's fees. The suit was based on five legal theories: (1) false designation of origin in violation of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (2) trademark infringement in violation of Ga. Code Ann. § 10-1-450; (3) deceptive trade practice in violation of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ga. Code Ann. §§ 10-1-370 to -375; (4) dilution of UGAA's marks in violation of the Georgia Anti-Dilution Statute, Ga. Code Ann. § 10-1-451(b); and (5) unfair competition in violation of Ga. Code Ann. § 23-2-55.

UGAA moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent Laite from producing, distributing, or selling "Battlin' Bulldog Beer." After a hearing, the district court granted UGAA's motion, concluding that UGAA was likely to prevail on its Lanham Act claim and that the remaining conditions for preliminary injunctive relief were met.

Meanwhile, Laite filed an answer to UGAA's complaint and requested a jury trial. At a pre-trial conference, counsel for both parties agreed to limit the evidence at trial to the transcript of the preliminary injunction hearing, the exhibits presented at that hearing, and supplementary documents to be submitted by the parties. UGAA subsequently informed the district court that, if the court determined that Laite was entitled to a jury trial because of the presence of both legal and equitable claims in the complaint, UGAA would voluntarily dismiss the legal claims. The district court entered an order (1) ruling that Laite was entitled to a jury trial, (2) voluntarily dismissing UGAA's legal claims, (3) permanently enjoining Laite from marketing or distributing "Battlin' Bulldog Beer" under the challenged label design, and (4) awarding costs to UGAA, but denying UGAA's request for attorney's fees. The district court entered final judgment on the order.

Laite then moved to alter or amend the district court's order and judgment, or in the alternative for a new trial, on the grounds that the parties had reserved the right to submit additional evidence in support of their respective positions. The district court took additional evidence from both parties, and, after reviewing the additional evidence, entered an order (1) granting Laite's motion to alter or amend the order and judgment for the purpose of including the additional evidence in the record, but (2) otherwise denying Laite's motion. This appeal ensued.

II. DISCUSSION

We kick off our discussion by noting that the district court, in granting preliminary injunctive relief to UGAA, discussed only the Lanham Act claim and did not mention the claims arising under Georgia law. In the final order granting UGAA's request for a permanent injunction, the district court stated:

With respect to the claim for permanent injunctive relief, the court is convinced that its preliminary injunctive order dated October 22, 1982, was in all respects correct under the facts established at the preliminary injunction hearing, i.e., that the label design at issue tends falsely to describe or represent the origin of the product at issue to the detriment of plaintiff. The findings of fact in that order are adopted here. It is therefore this court's conclusion of law, and it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that the defendant be PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from marketing or distributing Battlin' Bulldog Beer under the label design adopted by defendant which was the subject of this action.

Again, the district court did not mention the state law claims. On appeal, therefore, we are limited to determining whether the district court's decision was proper under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.

A. Whether the "University of Georgia Bulldog" is a Valid Trade or Service Mark Worthy of Protection

Laite's first argument on appeal is that the "University of Georgia Bulldog" is not a valid trade or service mark worthy of protection. Laite cites Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., 578 F. Supp. 911 (S.D.N.Y. 1983), aff'd on other grounds, 746 F.2d 112 (2d Cir. 1984), for the proposition that "[t]o make a successful claim of false designation of origin in violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), [plaintiff] must demonstrate that its trademark possesses `secondary meaning' — `[t]he power of a name or other configuration to symbolize a particular business, product or company. . . .'" Id. at 923 (citations omitted). Laite contends that the record does not contain sufficient proof of secondary meaning, and that the vagueness of UGAA's mark, coupled with extensive third-party uses of the same or similar marks, demonstrates the absence of secondary meaning.

The threshold question, however, is whether Universal City Studios accurately states the law of this circuit concerning the need for proof of secondary meaning under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. We conclude that it does not. The general rule in this circuit is that proof of secondary meaning is required only when protection is sought for descriptive marks, as opposed to arbitrary or suggestive marks. We have long recognized that:

Service marks fall into four categories. A strong mark is usually fictitious, arbitrary or fanciful and is generally inherently distinctive. It is afforded the widest ambit of protection. . . . A descriptive mark tells something about the product; it is protected only when secondary meaning is shown. . . . In contrast to the above is the suggestive mark, which subtly connotes something about the service or product. Although less distinctive than a fictitious, arbitrary or fanciful mark and therefore a comparatively weak mark, a suggestive mark will be protected without proof of secondary meaning. See Soweco, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., 617 F.2d 1178, 1184 (5th Cir. 1980) ("If used as a trademark for refrigerators, the term `Penguin' would be suggestive.") [ cert. denied, 450 U.S. 981, 101 S.Ct. 1516, 67 L.Ed.2d 816 (1981)]. Lastly, there are generic terms, which communicate `information about the nature or class of an article or service,' America[n] Heritage Life Ins. Co. v. Heritage Life Ins. Co., 494 F.2d 3, 11 (5th Cir. 1974), and therefore can never become a service or trademark.

Sun Banks of Florida, Inc. v. Sun Federal Savings Loan Ass'n, 651 F.2d 311, 315 (5th Cir. 1981) (citations and footnotes omitted); accord, Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Safeway Discount Drugs, Inc., 675 F.2d 1160, 1165 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1982); Vision Center v. Opticks, Inc., 596 F.2d 111, 115-16 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1016, 100 S.Ct. 668, 62 L.Ed.2d 646 (1980). Thus, secondary meaning is best characterized not as a general prerequisite for trade or service mark protection, but as a means by which otherwise unprotectable descriptive marks may obtain protection. See Aloe Creme Laboratories, Inc. v. Milsan, Inc., 423 F.2d 845, 848 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 928, 90 S.Ct. 1818, 26 L.Ed.2d 90 (1970). As one commentator has explained:

Secondary meaning converts a word originally incapable of serving as a mark into a full fledged trademark. . . . An arbitrary, fanciful, or otherwise distinctive word qualifies as a trademark immediately, because in the particular industry it has no primary meaning to overcome. Therefore it is initially registrable, and also protectible at common law. In the case of words with primary meaning, the reverse is true. Such words, be they descriptive or geographical, are initially nonregistrable and unprotectible unless and until they have attained secondary meaning as trademarks.

3. R. Callmann, The Law of Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies §§ 19.25, 19.26 at pp. 19-79, 19-85 (4th ed. 1983).

Although most of our cases applying this general rule have involved claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(a) for infringement of federally registered marks, the same rule necessarily applies to section 43(a) claims based on non-federally-registered marks. After all, "registration of a trademark confers only procedural advantages and does not enlarge the registrant's rights, for ownership of the trademark rests on adoption and use, not on registration." Turner v. HMH Publishing Co., 380 F.2d 224, 228 (5th Cir.) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1006, 88 S.Ct. 566, 19 L.Ed.2d 601 (1967). We also note that the Fifth Circuit, in an action under section 43(a) based on infringement of a trade dress, has held:

[S]econdary meaning [need not] be shown in every trade dress infringement suit [under section 43(a)]. . . . If the features of the trade dress sought to be protected are arbitrary and serve no function either to describe the product or assist in its effective packaging, there is no reason to require a plaintiff to show consumer connotations associated with such arbitrarily selected features.

Chevron Chemical Co. v. Voluntary Purchasing Groups, Inc., 659 F.2d 695, 702 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1126, 102 S.Ct. 2947, 73 L.Ed.2d 1342 (1982).

We therefore hold that, contrary to the language of Universal City Studios, proof of secondary meaning is required in an action under section 43(a) only when protection is sought for a descriptive mark, as opposed to an arbitrary or suggestive mark. Turning to the mark at issue in the instant case, we are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the "University of Georgia Bulldog" is not a descriptive mark. In our view, the portrayal of an English bulldog chosen by the university as a symbol for its athletic teams is, at best, "suggestive," if not downright "arbitrary." Thus, contrary to Laite's assertion, UGAA was not required to prove secondary meaning in order to prevail on its Lanham Act claim, and the district court did not err in granting injunctive relief to UGAA under section 43(a) despite the absence of proof of secondary meaning.

B. Whether the District Court Used the Wrong Factors in Comparing the "Battlin' Bulldog" with the "University of Georgia Bulldog"

Laite's next argument is that the district court used the wrong factors in comparing the "Battlin' Bulldog" with the "University of Georgia Bulldog." Laite correctly points out that this circuit has recognized seven factors as relevant to the determination of a "likelihood of confusion" between two trade or service marks: (1) the type of mark at issue, (2) the similarity of design between the two marks, (3) the similarity of product, (4) the identity of retail outlets and purchasers, (5) the identity of advertising media utilized, (6) the defendant's intent, and (7) actual confusion between the two marks. See Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O'Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 45 (5th Cir. 1975); accord, Conagra, Inc. v. Singleton, 743 F.2d 1508, 1514 (11th Cir. 1984); Jellibeans, Inc. v. Skating Clubs of Georgia, Inc., 716 F.2d 833, 840 (11th Cir. 1983); Safeway Stores, Inc., 675 F.2d at 1164; Sun-Fun Products, Inc. v. Suntan Research Development Inc., 656 F.2d 186, 189 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981); Sun Banks of Florida, Inc., 651 F.2d at 314; Amstar Corp. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 259 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899, 101 S.Ct. 268, 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980). According to Laite, the court below erred by failing to consider all seven of the relevant factors before deciding that the sale of "Battlin' Bulldog Beer" created a "likelihood of confusion."

The difficulty with this argument is twofold. First, we are not convinced, after examining the record and the orders entered by the district court, that the court failed to consider all seven of the relevant factors. At the preliminary injunction hearing, counsel for Laite discussed at length the seven factors, as set out in the Amstar Corp. case. Moreover, in the order granting the preliminary injunction, the district court cited Amstar Corp. and specifically mentioned two of the seven factors, namely, the similarity of design and the defendant's intent. The fact that the court did not discuss the other five factors may indicate only that the court found those factors insignificant under the circumstances. We never have held that a court must specifically mention each of the seven factors in order to avoid reversal on appeal. Cf. Conagra, Inc., 743 F.2d at 1514 n. 8 (appellate court found two of the seven factors sufficient to compel finding of likely confusion, and chose not to address the other five factors).

The second problem with Laite's argument is that it is inextricably intertwined with the question whether the district court's factual finding of "likelihood of confusion" was correct. In Sun Banks of Florida, Inc., the appellant, like Laite, attempted to avoid the "clearly erroneous" standard of review for factual findings by arguing that the district court failed to consider the proper factors in determining "likelihood of confusion." We rejected this distinction, explaining:

Our comment in Kentucky Fried Chicken v. Diversified Packaging, 549 F.2d 368, 384 (5th Cir. 1977), that "when a district court labors under a misapprehension concerning the governing legal norms, the `clearly erroneous' standard no longer circumscribes [sic] appellate review," may not be taken as an erosion of the standard of review applicable to a finding of likelihood of confusion.

651 F.2d at 314.

Similarly, in Safeway Stores, Inc., we refused to treat as a separate ground for reversal the appellant's claim that the district court had failed to consider all seven of the relevant factors. Instead, we indicated that "[o]ur review of the district court's ruling . . . is governed by the clearly erroneous test even though the court's analysis of the factors relevant to a finding of likelihood of confusion was incomplete." 675 F.2d at 1164 n. 3 (emphasis added).

In short, even were we to agree with Laite that the court below failed to consider some of the relevant factors, this would not constitute an independent basis for reversing the court's decision. The real question is whether the court's ultimate determination about the "likelihood of confusion" was correct. We therefore proceed to the third and final issue on appeal.

C. Whether the District Court's Conclusion that the Sale of "Battlin' Bulldog Beer" Created a "Likelihood of Confusion" is Clearly Erroneous

Laite's final argument is that the district court's conclusion that the sale of "Battlin' Bulldog Beer" created a "likelihood of confusion" is clearly erroneous. See Jellibeans, Inc., 716 F.2d at 839-40 n. 16 ("likelihood of confusion" factual finding subject to "clearly erroneous" standard of review); Safeway Stores, Inc., 675 F.2d at 1163 (same); Amstar Corp., 615 F.2d at 257-58 (same). But see Elby's Big Boys of Steubenville, Inc. v. Frisch's Restaurants, Inc., 459 U.S. 916, 103 S.Ct. 231, 74 L.Ed.2d 182 (1982) (White, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (discussing split in circuits on whether "likelihood of confusion" is question of fact or legal conclusion). A district court's factual finding is clearly erroneous when, "although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 542, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948). While the "clearly erroneous" standard of review is less stringent than the well-known sports rule, "The referee is always right," it nevertheless presents a formidable challenge to appellants who, like Laite, seek to overturn the factual findings of a district court.

After reviewing the record, we cannot say that we are "left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Id. On the contrary, we agree with the district court that the sale of "Battlin' Bulldog Beer" created a "likelihood of confusion." We find most significant the same two factors that were identified by the district court, the similarity of design between the two marks and the defendant's intent. In our view, these two factors alone are sufficient to support the conclusion reached by the court below.

The most cursory visual examination of the two bulldogs in this case reveals their similarity:

As the district court pointed out, it is the combination of similar design elements, rather than any individual element, that compels the conclusion that the two bulldogs are similar. Had the cans of "Battlin' Bulldog Beer" been printed in different colors, or had the "Battlin' Bulldog" worn a different monogram on its sweater, we might have a different case. Instead, the cans are red and black, the colors of the University of Georgia, and the "Battlin' Bulldog" wears the letter "G." To be sure, the "Battlin' Bulldog" is not an exact reproduction of the "University of Georgia Bulldog." Nevertheless, we find the differences between the two so minor as to be legally, if not factually, nonexistent.

The defendant's intent likewise is apparent from the record. The record establishes that the Royal Brewing Company of New Orleans, Louisiana, the brewer of "Battlin' Bulldog Beer," wrote to several southeastern colleges, including the University of Georgia, seeking permission to use the colleges' symbols on cans of beer. Furthermore, Laite candidly admitted in the court below, and at oral argument in this court, that "Battlin' Bulldog Beer" was intended to capitalize on the popularity of the University of Georgia football program. In short, there can be no doubt that Laite hoped to sell "Battlin' Bulldog Beer" not because the beer tastes great, but because the cans would catch the attention of University of Georgia football fans.

Although we find the defendant's intent and the similarity of design between the two marks sufficient to support the district court's finding of a "likelihood of confusion," we also note that the remaining five factors either support the same conclusion or, at least, do not undermine it. For example, as we previously noted, the type of mark at issue in this case is at best "suggestive," if not downright "arbitrary." Such marks traditionally have been characterized as "strong." See Safeway Stores, Inc., 675 F.2d at 164-65 ("Safeway" mark held "a relatively strong one with at least the qualities of a suggestive mark"). The fact that many other colleges, junior colleges, and high schools use an English bulldog as a symbol does not significantly diminish the strength of UGAA's mark, since almost all of the other schools (1) are geographically remote, (2) use a different color scheme, or (3) have names that begin with a letter other than "G." The remaining schools are so few in number and small in size that they pose no real threat to the strength of UGAA's mark. Cf. id. at 1165 (third-party use of word "Safeway" does not diminish strength of mark, since most third-party users also employ distinctive additional words or engage in different businesses from plaintiff's).

Nor do we find it significant that the record in this case includes numerous examples of products containing either exact or approximate reproductions of the "University of Georgia Bulldog." The record does not reveal how many of these products were licensed by UGAA; the widespread use of a mark by licensees would tend to support, rather than rebut, the proposition that UGAA's mark is a strong one. On balance, we conclude that the "University of Georgia Bulldog" is a relatively strong mark, at least in Georgia.

We also find in the record persuasive evidence of actual confusion between the two marks. UGAA introduced an affidavit from a University of Georgia professor who stated:

During the week of October 11, 1982, I received approximately ten (10) to fifteen (15) inquiries in person or by telephone about the sale and distribution of Battlin' Bulldog Beer and its connection with the University of Georgia. Most of those who made the inquiries were concerned that Battlin' Bulldog Beer was not the sort of product that should be licensed by or in any way related to the University of Georgia, and inquiries were made as to whether or not the University had granted permission to use its symbols on the product.

According to the affidavit, one caller expressly stated that he thought it was clear that the "Battlin' Bulldog Beer" can included a "University of Georgia Bulldog."

Laite argues that any "confusion" over the beer relates not to its origin, but to whether it has been licensed by the University of Georgia. According to Laite, no one actually believes that the University of Georgia has gone into the brewing business. Regardless of the validity of this statement, we find it irrelevant to the issues in this case. In Boston Professional Hockey Ass'n, Inc. v. Dallas Cap Emblem Mfg., Inc., 510 F.2d 1004 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 868, 96 S.Ct. 132, 46 L.Ed.2d 98 (1975), this court's predecessor held that "confusion" need not relate to the origin of the challenged product. Rather, "confusion" may relate to the public's knowledge that the trademark, which is "the triggering mechanism" for the sale of the product, originates with the plaintiff. See id. at 1012. The Boston Pro. Hockey rule applies to claims under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, as well as to claims for infringement of federally registered trademarks. See id. at 1012-13.

Laite also argues that no confusion could result from the sale of "Battlin' Bulldog Beer" because the cans contain the disclaimer, "Not associated with the University of Georgia." We reject this argument for two reasons. First, the disclaimer is relatively inconspicuous on the individual cans, and practically invisible when the cans are grouped together into six-packs. Second, in the Boston Pro. Hockey case we dismissed a similar argument, stating:

The exact duplication of the symbol and the sale as the team's emblem satisfying the confusion requirement of the law, words which indicate it was not authorized by the trademark owner are insufficient to remedy the illegal confusion. Only a prohibition of the unauthorized use will sufficiently remedy the wrong.

510 F.2d at 1013.

Finally, we find the remaining three factors, similarity of product, identity of retail outlets and purchasers, and identity of advertising media utilized, less significant in the instant case than in most trade or service mark cases. These factors primarily relate to the "likelihood of confusion" between a plaintiff's and a defendant's products. Here, however, as in Boston Pro. Hockey, the confusion stems not from the defendant's unfair competition with the plaintiff's products, but from the defendant's misuse of the plaintiff's reputation and good will as embodied in the plaintiff's mark. Therefore, under the circumstances, the nonexistence of these three factors does not undermine the district court's finding of a "likelihood of confusion."

III. CONCLUSION

The "Battlin' Bulldog's" football career thus comes to an abrupt end. Laite devised a clever entrepreneurial "game plan," but failed to take into account the strength of UGAA's mark and the tenacity with which UGAA was willing to defend that mark. Like the University of Georgia's famed "Junkyard Dog" defense, UGAA was able to hold its opponent to little or no gain. Because we find that the district court did not err, in fact or in law, when it granted permanent injunctive relief to UGAA, we hereby AFFIRM.